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 last
To: Seven_0; xzins; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN; betty boop
Thank you so much for your reply, dear Seven_0!

me: By the way, the speed limit of the universe - the speed of light - does not apply to comoving coordinates. There was a phase in the inflation of the universe, when space/time itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

you: I don’t know what this means or who could have observed it. I remember doing problems where we had to calculate times and distances from different points of view. As you increase your speed, distance shrinks. That’s part of the speed limit.

God alone could be the observer in the beginning and only He could have seen the big bang – the early phase in which the expansion of space/time would have exceeded the speed of light (inflationary model.)

The calculations you remember may have to do with Lorentz contraction and time dilation in Special Relativity. Here’s a link to my favorite graphic explanation of Special Relativity.

The essential difference between Special Relativity and General Relativity is that the former looks at space/time as an evenly distributed hypercube whereas the latter sees the structure of space/time as warped.

For instance, higher gravity regions (e.g. earth and sun) can be visualized as indentations in space/time. Thus a spaceship must achieve “escape velocity” to emerge from the well. Even light bends under the influence of these regions.

Centers of galaxies, black holes, etc. are particularly intense high gravity regions. The indentation of a black hole is so deep geometrically speaking that even light cannot achieve escape velocity. (Black holes do however experience entropy but that’s a different subject.)

The remaining critical density (75%) is the region between galaxies which is proposed by some to include negative gravity – or space/time “outdents” which would accelerate the expansion of the universe.

Following the equivalence principle, the higher the gravity, the deeper the indentation in space/time, the slower time moves for the observer. Conversely, the smaller the gravity, the smoother the space/time, the faster time moves for the observer. And of course, if gravity were negative, space/time would outdent causing the observer to be moved without acceleration.

Another way to visualize it would be to imagine yourself at rest, sitting there in the beginning when the big bang occurs. Suddenly space/time is created and rapidly expands creating space/time as it goes. You are moving even though you are doing nothing at all.

Conversely, if space/time were to fold with you sitting there at rest, doing nothing – suddenly you would find yourself at a different space/time coordinate, i.e. a different time and place.

I must also mention here that there are theories of additional dimensions of space and most notably, of time (Vafa, Wesson.) If the extra time-like dimension is expanded, then time which we experience as linear (past, present, future) would actually be a plane or volume.

In such theories, past present and future (from our perspective) are actually concurrent to an observer with extra-dimensional perception. IOW, whereas he would have remarkable perception to see the past and the future, he would still not be able to see "all that there is" all at once because he would still be "in" space/time.

Only God can see "all that there is" all at once. Timelessness applies in our mediation on His Name, I AM.

me: The "surely die" is translated from the Hebrew phrase "muwth muwth" which is literally "death death." I understand this to be not merely physical death, but the second death as well. In other words, the penalty was not just physical death for Adamic man (all of us) but also the second death.

You: I did not know this. Perhaps there is another explanation. Perhaps Christ’s death on the cross was so we would not go through the second death. When Christ dismissed the spirit, did he also dismiss the body?

Everything that physically lives, physically dies. War does not cause death, it merely hastens it. Medical marvels do not save lives, they merely delay the inevitable.

Truly, it’s not “about” our physical bodies which must physically come to an end:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. - Romans 8:2

And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness. - Romans 8:10

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. – John 3:6-7

It is “about” Christ’s body and His blood which was essential for our redemption and establishment as adopted children of God.

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

[It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. – Hebrews 9:12-23

Thus, I would agree that when Christ dismissed the spirit He also surrendered His own body to that purpose. This was the necessary step in the reconciliation:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

And because Christ is God, the sacrifice is timeless - it applies over all of time. He is always the Lamb of God and He is always the Lion of Tribe of Judah:

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. – Revelation 5:5-6

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. – Revelation 13:8

Only God enfleshed as Jesus could accomplish this (Isaiah 53, Psalms 22):

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6

To God be the glory!

201 posted on 03/28/2009 9:09:11 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Seven_0; xzins; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN
I must also mention here that there are theories of additional dimensions of space and most notably, of time (Vafa, Wesson.) If the extra time-like dimension is expanded, then time which we experience as linear (past, present, future) would actually be a plane or volume.... In such theories, past present and future (from our perspective) are actually concurrent to an observer with extra-dimensional perception. IOW, whereas he would have remarkable perception to see the past and the future, he would still not be able to see "all that there is" all at once because he would still be "in" space/time.

What a glorious essay/post, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you so very much!

202 posted on 03/28/2009 10:16:53 AM PDT by betty boop (All truthful knowledge begins and ends in experience. — Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
203 posted on 03/28/2009 10:35:17 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Does anyone know what Judaism has to say about the age of the earth?


204 posted on 03/28/2009 1:51:31 PM PDT by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

==Does anyone know what Judaism has to say about the age of the earth?

Judaism and Evolution

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html


205 posted on 03/28/2009 3:19:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks!

The best thing about FreeRepublic is the knowledge of its many contributors.

“Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted.”

Or both.

It sounds to me as though there could be a lot of wiggle room on both counts. My greatest objection is to dogmatists of all stripes.


206 posted on 03/28/2009 4:22:46 PM PDT by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

==My greatest objection is to dogmatists of all stripes.

Doesn’t that make you dogmatic on dogmatism?


207 posted on 03/28/2009 4:30:18 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
True.

There was some exaggeration in my words. I was trying to express a general tendency. However, it isn't the case that everything is uncertain. It isn't the case that nothing is reasonably known.

Many of the topics (evolution, age of the earth) that you have posted have garnered a range of opinions from individuals who seem reasonable and intelligent. This applies to both the science and the religion. I think that I am reasonably familiar with the evolution debate. I've concluded that evolution "dogma" is not warranted by the evidence.

Some posters are too strident for my taste. Often their "evidence," scientific or scriptural, is more conclusive to them than it is to me. They are the ones who prompted my comment about dogmatism.
208 posted on 03/28/2009 6:24:22 PM PDT by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>If I might ask, have you allegorized the creation story sufficiently in your mind that you believe (based on the evidence of dry bones), that man was not a special creation of God, but that he descended from lower forms of life and ultimately from some simian non-human ancestor?

No.

Let me present a similar question: “Have you quit beating your wife yet?”

...

Do you see the problem with this sort of question? It operates on flawed assumptions, such as you having a wife at all. Also, no matter how you answer it (it is a simple yes/no question), you admit to beating your wife.

>>You are perpetuating a shame to Christ.
>By believing his words?

No, by behaving like a fool. Is it not a fool who answers questions as they are being asked, but before the sentence is out of the mouth? Is it not a fool who can offer a reason greater than seven wise men?

>It appears to me that you ARE seriously offended. BTW I don’t believe I have failed to answer any of your questions. You may correct me if I am wrong. Further, I don’t see where you have answered mine.

Ok, now, I am a programmer, I KNOW what literal means. I am also an amateur writer, I like to write and tell stories, so I know that mode of linguistics as well.

1) A day is defined as the rotation of the Earth in relation to the sun. How then is a day possible before the Earth was created?
1b) Using the definition from 1, how is it possiblel to have a day when the Earth existed but the sun had not yet been created?
2) First, The Hebrew word used to describe God’s creative work is “to stretch;” Second, We observe that relativistic time dilation DOES exist, meaning that the faster an object is going the slower time is experienced to a stationary observer. Third, given the first and the second, as God created the universe the edges He was stretching out would be moving at a greater speed then the center. Therefore, couldn’t the time experienced by some portions of the universe be millions of years, while some other place only experienced a day?

3) In the previous question we assumed that time was uniform, yet applied relativity to generate a question. (Meaning that even though time was slower at faster speeds, the same rate of speed would result in the same ratio of “slowness”.) Now, what if the assumption that time is uniform is false? This would mean that “patches” of the universe are experiencing time at different rates, which we can “sort of” get with relativity. How would a specific time-descriptive word adequately explain reality?

4) How can I offer a defense if I am already condemned, if you will not listen? (This relates to your yes/no question; I answered it by refuting the premises you were basing your question on, and yet you said I did not answer your question.)

Also, I asked if Jesus’s saying of “You must be born again.” to Zacheus was literal; you said “No”. So, if Jesus is God, and I assume we agree there, and He is using allegory and metaphor then isn’t it also reasonable to think that God might use metaphor as well?

If no, please explain the relation of marriage as an institute and a relationship and how Jesus relates to His church. It would be most interesting to see how someone could fail to see metaphor in marriage and Christ/church interaction.

>Did I accuse you of having a “weak faith”? I don’t believe so.

You did not, I merely saw the opportunity for you to do so and said “Before you accuse me of having a weak faith”... Perhaps this was unjust of me.

>You have accused me of many things on this thread; of not having faith, of being a fool, of perpetuating a shame upon Christ.

I have called you a fool. I have NOT said your faith was weak, nor have I said it was strong. I DID say you were perpetrating a shame to Christ, and as I explained, by acting like a fool.

>All I am doing is expressing my belief in his words.

And have I done anything different? Honestly? There are more ways to read than literal, and sometimes reading them literally makes no sense, as was the case of Zacheus and Jesus. (”What? How can a man be born again? Can he enter into his mother’s womb a second time?” is a perfectly valid question to the literal reading of Jesus’s words “You must be born again.”)

>I honestly don’t understand your visceral reaction.

Let me explain it to you, as best as I can with a story:
Today, I had breakfast with my father and, while eating, the alarm on my phone went off and I pulled it out of my pocket, turned it off and returned to breakfast. My father then asked; “Is that your phone? Is that your phone ringing?” I said “It’s my alarm. It’s nobody.” After answering “it’s my alarm.” I got yelled at about it being a yes/no question, so I answered ‘no’. I got yelled at because “I’m not stupid, I saw you pull your phone out of your pocket!”

What was I supposed to do? If I answered “yes” it would be true that it was my phone, but false that it was ringing; likewise, if I answered “no” it would be false because it WAS my phone, but false that it was a call.
Both answers were losing answers.

Do you now see why I dislike the treatment?

>If I say God created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is within them in 6 days am I perpetuating a Shame upon Christ.

Should that be a question-mark instead of a period? But that’s irrelevant, I did not say that a literal six 24-hr days was shameful. I said your treatment was.

>Weren’t those the same words that were inscribed by God on the Ten Commandments?

No, actually those would be “Have no other Gods before me”, “Do not blaspheme”, “Observe the Sabbath and keep it holy”, “Do not murder”, “Do not covet”, “Do not steal”, “Do not commit adultery” and so forth; there is nothing in the Ten Commandments that says anything about the creation.

>Was God perpetuating a shame upon Christ by inscribing them?

What? You seem to be thinking that I’m saying that I think you’re stupid/foolish because you are reading things literally. I never said that, in fact I wanted you to answer my questions regarding how you believe that they should be read literally. I never said that they WEREN’T 24-hr days; I just said that it makes more sense to me to read them as figurative days, after all the sun didn’t exist in the beginning, nor the earth, and those are what defines ‘day’. (Think about it this way, if the Earth rotated once in 28 hrs, would 28 hours then be a day?)


209 posted on 03/28/2009 9:31:47 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>”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!

How so?

>Job had questioned God’s motives,

Which is still questioning God.

>while we, on the other hand, are being obedient in studying his ages and appointed times as he commanded us to do.

Reference Please. Also, see 2 pet 3:8
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20pet%203:8&version=31

>If you do not understand his times, how can you do the job that he has set forth for you to do?

Oh, I agree. But also we must understand what God is communicating, right? When Jesus said that the time of harvest had come and the fields were ready, did that indicate to his deciples that they should go into the fields and literally reap?

>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 irrelevant?

But “No man knoweth the hour” right? I’m not saying we shouldn’t be aware, but I am saying that we need to act intelligently.


210 posted on 03/28/2009 9:37:34 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
No.

Good.

211 posted on 03/29/2009 12:14:35 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
there is nothing in the Ten Commandments that says anything about the creation.

I guess you've never read them.

212 posted on 03/29/2009 12:16:10 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And what is the LITERAL interpretation of “sunrise” and “sunset” on the “days” before the Sun was created?

There is no 'sunrise' or 'sunset' in Genesis chapter 1.

And the evening and the morning were the third day. --Genesis 1:13

213 posted on 03/29/2009 5:30:40 AM PDT by backslacker (In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>>there is nothing in the Ten Commandments that says anything about the creation.
>I guess you’ve never read them.

I have, and I stand corrected, they do mention them, I simply forgot. (here they are:)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex%2020&version=31

Now, I ask you to answer my questions. I also ask how that keeping the sabbath precludes an literary reading.


214 posted on 03/29/2009 6:58:06 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I have, and I stand corrected, they do mention them, I simply forgot.

Now that you've read them and remembered them, will you now accept the FACT that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days?

Now, I ask you to answer my questions.

It is difficult to find your questions as they are buried so deeply among your insults. But I will try.

And have I done anything different?

Yes, you've insulted me and questioned my faith and accused me of being an insult to Christ.

Honestly?

Yes

What was I supposed to do?

Apparently your father asked two questions. Is that your phone... yes... Is that your phone ringing.... no.

Do you now see why I dislike the treatment?

No. I fail to see the comparison. The question I asked was a straightforward yes/no question and you continually refused to answer it. You finally did, but not before you insulted me, called me a fool and questioned my faith and called me an insult to Christ.

Think about it this way, if the Earth rotated once in 28 hrs, would 28 hours then be a day?

If, at the end of creation the earth was rotating once every 28 hours, then that would be a day (but then for the same reason we now have 24 hours, those 28 hours would be 24 hours.

I also ask how that keeping the sabbath precludes an literary reading.

I don't know what you are talking about.

215 posted on 03/29/2009 8:58:28 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
But “No man knoweth the hour” right?

The total misunderstanding of the real meaning of this phrase is exactly what I'm getting at.

To a Jew living in Jerusalem at the time that the Lord uttered thoae words, they had a well known and very specific meaning, which is almost the exact opposite of what present day Christians take it to mean. - It was the traditional understanding, dating back to the time of Abraham, or earlier, To fixing the precise moment of the new moon. In this case, as is later illustrated by Paul in 1Cor 15, and 1Thess 5, it is referring to the new moon that marks the beginning of Yom Kippur, or "the Feast of Trumpets."

This is why we must delve into the minute details of each and every sentence of God's word, and there is no subject therein that is unimportant. I this case the modern, ignorant assumed meaning has turned the real meaning on its head.

216 posted on 03/29/2009 10:11:42 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 210 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I see what you are saying about reading details. However, I’m not sure about your claim that the opposite of the phrase is what is actually meant. I will take a look at the references you provide and think on it.

Let me ask another question though: is God concerned more about you having the correct understanding of what His word means, down to the minutia, or is He more concerned with where your heart is? (1 Cor 13)

Keeping that former question in mind, would God rather you were right about whether it is a literal/literary ‘day’ in the creation story, or would He rather that you showed His love to others? (See James, in addition to the answer of 1 Cor 13)


217 posted on 03/29/2009 3:10:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>>I have, and I stand corrected, they do mention them, I simply forgot.
>
>Now that you’ve read them and remembered them, will you now accept the FACT that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days?

I never rejected it. I simply wanted to argue, in the philosophical sense... to get a clearer/wiser understanding of the truth.

It seems to me that you do not love the truth so much as ‘being right’.


218 posted on 03/29/2009 7:06:00 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
It seems to me that you do not love the truth so much as ‘being right’.

Another insult. Got any more?

219 posted on 03/29/2009 7:07:29 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>>It seems to me that you do not love the truth so much as ‘being right’.

>Another insult. Got any more?

That was an observation, not an insult... but if you REALLY want an insult, I can give you a couple.


220 posted on 03/29/2009 7:08:26 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
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.

221 posted on 03/29/2009 7:09:56 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>>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.)


222 posted on 03/29/2009 7:20:13 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
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.

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.

223 posted on 03/29/2009 7:25:32 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

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


224 posted on 03/29/2009 7:43:17 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Buck W.; Alamo-Girl; xzins; enat; GodGunsGuts; D-fendr; starlifter; Seven_0; MHGinTN; ...
Show me a question of yours that I refused to answer.

One.

How about many?

Post 37
In 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 2
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?

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.

225 posted on 03/29/2009 7:54:23 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; P-Marlowe; Buck W.; Alamo-Girl; xzins; enat; GodGunsGuts; D-fendr; starlifter; ...

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?


226 posted on 03/29/2009 8:09:22 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 225 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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.


227 posted on 03/29/2009 8:14:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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).


228 posted on 03/29/2009 8:24:30 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 224 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; P-Marlowe; Buck W.; Alamo-Girl; xzins; enat; GodGunsGuts; D-fendr; starlifter; ...

>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?


229 posted on 03/29/2009 8:35:33 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

*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.}


230 posted on 03/29/2009 8:38:26 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Post 37 Is Jesus misinformed, or lying then?

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.

231 posted on 03/29/2009 8:40:09 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>I answered you in post 216.

Forgive me; I did not [fully] understand.


232 posted on 03/29/2009 8:40:13 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Gee, think our omnipotent God who exists beyod our understanding of time might have his own definition of “day”?

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."

233 posted on 03/29/2009 8:43:06 PM PDT by dfwgator (1996 2006 2008 - Good Things Come in Threes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

>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.


234 posted on 03/29/2009 8:45:41 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>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?


235 posted on 03/29/2009 8:48:10 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; editor-surveyor
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.

236 posted on 03/29/2009 8:53:24 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>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.)


237 posted on 03/29/2009 9:06:07 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; editor-surveyor
Most of the questions rooted from the intent of: Explain why the creation story MUST be read as six literal 24-hour days.

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

238 posted on 03/29/2009 9:13:27 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; P-Marlowe
Attributing motives to other Freepers, reading minds of other Freepers, making a thread "about" individual Freepers --- all are forms of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

239 posted on 03/29/2009 10:57:54 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; OneWingedShark; P-Marlowe; Buck W.; Alamo-Girl; xzins; enat; GodGunsGuts; ...
What do you mean, “on dangerous ground”?
240 posted on 03/30/2009 5:20:18 AM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
What do you mean, “on dangerous ground”?

I mean potentially on the same ground as the originator of that technique.

241 posted on 03/30/2009 7:19:24 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 240 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; OneWingedShark; P-Marlowe; Buck W.; Alamo-Girl; xzins; enat; GodGunsGuts
It seems every Bible War thread is quickly fouled by the putrid stench of self righteousness. Many are thoroughly convinced of their own Divinely inspired and unerring interpretation of the Bible, yet willfully ignorant of the fact that its words and meanings have been open to honest discussion and debate on the meaning and interpretation for thousands of years.

The self righteous know - they KNOW - that any interpretation not fully consistent with their own or any question of that interpretation is proof of sordid or evil intent. It is just not possible for there to be any other interpretation. The truth of their belief is so undeniable that even the slightest variance ties them in knots.

They are as certain of this as people in the Middle Ages were certain the plague was caused by the Jews. Even questioning the orthodox view, then and now, is heresy.

No proof is ever necessary, just an unrelenting burning anger that someone, somewhere, thinks they might not be completely correct.

Matthew 7:1 comes to mind.

242 posted on 03/30/2009 9:15:22 AM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

>Matthew 7:1 comes to mind.

This is true.

>The self righteous know - they KNOW - that any interpretation not fully consistent with their own or any question of that interpretation is proof of sordid or evil intent.

Indeed, reading motive into something said or some question asked which was never there to begin with.

>It is just not possible for there to be any other interpretation.

That is also called arrogance and pride, whichever it is it is most certainly nor humility.

>The truth of their belief is so undeniable that even the slightest variance ties them in knots.

It seems that way. I am very glad that my salvation is NOT dependent on complete or correct understanding, but on Jesus Christ... because my understanding and comprehension are so limited and insufficient, but my Savior is not so limited.


243 posted on 03/30/2009 9:22:04 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; starlifter; editor-surveyor

OK, I keep getting pinged here, and have read through the recent discussion and offer this observation, related to the content:

When we see statements like: “God said himself” or “the perfection of God’s word” or statements that God himself wrote the Bible, we’re veering into a non-Christian view and toward the view that God literally dictated or directly wrote the entire Scriptures.

This is true in the Moslem view, but in the Christian view the whole of Scriptures are inspired by not literally written by God. We then have many different translations and interpretations.

An illustration of the difference is the Islamic prohibition against translation of Qu’ran.

It’s an important distinction. Perfection is an attribute of the infinite, of God only, not any book or translation. To mistake the finite for the infinite is the big step toward idolatry.

We may refer to Scripture as “God’s word;” however God’s Word is much larger and not reducible to words.

The meanings and facts we take from Scripture must take this into account if we wish to seek truth.


244 posted on 03/30/2009 11:27:16 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; P-Marlowe; starlifter

If you really don’t that the Bible really is God’s word in every respect, then there is no point in attempting to discuss anything with you.

God really has proven that it is his perfect word by interlacing it with humanly impossible, numerically based patterns that could only have been done by the creator of all things. This is his seal to all that are his own. It could not be by accident, and if you had any understanding of the laws of probability, you probably would not have even written this post.


245 posted on 03/30/2009 3:49:32 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 244 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Yes, dear.
246 posted on 03/30/2009 4:10:32 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I recognize the Bible Code. It’s been debunked including by statistical science. The first problem is which text you choose and where you choose to put the spaces. Then, statistically, the same or better “predictions” have been gleaned from “Moby Dick” with the same methodology.

The inclusion of Moby Dick as Scripture aside, you have the theological problems approaching a Qu’ran-istic view of the Bible.

If so, you’re correct, perhaps we do not share theology enough to discuss further, except on the rightness of this view. I also would say that a Bible Code view of the New Testament would be foreign for most Christian doctrine.

I’m assuming that by “the Bible really is God’s word in every respect” your excluding Jesus, Creation, God speaking to our hearts, etc. If God’s Word does not include all these, then I think the error veers further away from what I would call, lower-case o, orthodox Christianity.

thanks for your reply...


247 posted on 03/30/2009 4:14:00 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I wasn’t speaking of the silliness of Drosnin’s predictions, but the Bible codes per-se were certainly not debunked in any way. In fact, the debunkers were completely debunked when the texts that they supposedly used were proven to have been changed in numerous places from their originals.

There was a second book, “The Bible Code Bombshell,” that took it to the next level, and proved mathematically that the original estimates were conservative, and the level of improbability was actually several orders of magnitude higher.

But, even better, in the Greek Koine New Testiment, even more complex and convincing relationships were found in the most controversial portions, such as 1John 5:7-8.

No serious mathematician has any doubts on the authorship of the Bible.


248 posted on 03/30/2009 4:33:42 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 247 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>No serious mathematician has any doubts on the authorship of the Bible.

All serious mathematicians believe God wrote the Bible? I don’t think there’s that test for mathematicians.

Statistical in a long enough text you will have nearby letters that make words and sentences. Comparison tests using of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” were just as successful as those with the Bible.

You may of course believe which author you wish on this; however, the larger point is the view that the Scriptures are God handwriting. The only religion I’m aware of that holds this view is Islam.

thanks for your reply..


249 posted on 03/30/2009 4:58:51 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

In this context, a more accurate way to put the phrase: “God handwriting” is God dictating every character/word by word.


250 posted on 03/30/2009 5:02:51 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


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