Posted on 06/04/2009 8:50:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Looks like it’s time to edit the list again.
Numbers 46, 47 and 49 contradict each other.
Faith seeks and requires no evidence.
Well that proves my point, doesn't it? You appeal to the 'Church Fathers' over the Scriptures. From the Biblical perspective, a natural day is defined by 'evening and morning' which only requires a source of light (conveniently created on Day 1). You argue yourself right out of believing the Scriptures through human logic. Not good.
"And of course I've read Exodus 20:11. But because Scripture has one sense doesn't mean it doesn't have another as well. Are you going to tell me that 70 "weeks" in Daniel's prophecy only meant literally 7-day periods? We're dealing with multiple levels of meaning here."
OK, so you admit multiple-levels of meaning but deny the one level that disagrees with what man says. You again put man's word above God's Word.
"What is human pride is for modern-day exegetes to come to Genesis 1...which every Rabbi and Church Father admitted was an extraordinarily difficult text...and pretend that they have it all figured out in terms of what God did and how."
What is human pride is for modern-day exegetes to come to Genesis 1 and pretend that it must be molded to agree with what man says about the creation rather than what God said.
"ALL of the interpretations out there, GourmetDan, and that includes yours and mine and everyone else's, *are subject to error*. Believing otherwise is not only prideful but flagrantly heretical."
Mine isn't an interpretation. It's a straightforward reading and adding up the timelines listed. You insist it must be an interpretation because it doesn't agree with what man says on the subject and you prefer to agree with man's word over God's Word.
"Ah this doctrine of perspecuity....what evil it hath wrought in the Church."
Ah this doctrine of opacity....what evil it hath wrought in the Church. (Spell check is your friend, btw.)
“You just said it was silly to estimate the age of a population from it’s size and then post a link to a chart that purports to do exactly that? What’s up?”
—No, it is not a chart estimating the time using population size or vice versa. It’s a chart that uses archaeology and historical records to attempt to estimate population size. The people putting the graph together were not assuming that time flowed backwards when the population size dipped for instance.
Unless a population size grows at least somewhat steadily, it’s completely worthless to try to use population size as a way of measuring time.
And while it is true that agricultural societies usually grow, sometimes rapidly, such things aren’t generally seen in non-agricultural societies.
I would also say that it's not important how old the earth is because even Christ said that not even He knows when God will choose to send Him back. There is no benefit of knowing how old the earth is because there is nothing of significance to measure with it. If we could find out how old the earth is and then use that as a basis for when Jesus will return, then that would be a whole other story.
Tell Dick to stop being a such Dick, and all is good. I’ve not taken a side, but Dick gave me one, with nothing to base the comment on, and HE gave me crap for reading comprehension? Yeah, that’s just a plain scumbag move, from an obvious scumbag.
I made no mis-statements(sic) nor errors, it is you who is wrong, and you do owe me an apology. I doubt I’ll get it, because that would show class. I know enough of your type. Too many, actually.
That may be true, but to answer the initial question "Who needs evidence", the answer is that man does.
"Man" does not equal "Faith".
It sure was. It just used different assumptions. The article didn't assume that time flowed backwards either. Did you really think it did?
"Unless a population size grows at least somewhat steadily, it’s completely worthless to try to use population size as a way of measuring time."
Are you saying the article tried to do that? Show me where.
"And while it is true that agricultural societies usually grow, sometimes rapidly, such things aren’t generally seen in non-agricultural societies."
Did the article say that? Where was that said?
Some (hu)men require evidence; some don’t.
This and similar threads have as their purpose the mining of “proof” of God’s creation from human scientific activity, in order to bolster personal faith. The whole exercise isn’t necessary, if one only has faith in the first place.
You whinning little snip!
You definitely misspoke, or deliberately mislead. I’ll let you pick.
Travis the Preferred Freeper!
LOL...no my friend, I believe the Scriptures. I believe ALL of them...so that means when I get two passages that don't seem to jive I try to figure out what the heck is going on instead of sweeping one of them under the rug to fit a pet theory.
Again, I think your dismissal of the exegetical problems here is cavalier. If we are talking about a source of light other than the sun, then what was this source of light? And were its evening and morning periods longer or shorter than the 24 hours we are used to with the sun?
Mine isn't an interpretation. It's a straightforward reading
And that's the problem. You seem to have equated, in your mind, your own personal reading with the "straightforward", plain, and obvious reading. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination.
And that's why that 0.5% is meaningless, made up number.
You can start at anytime, with any number of people (well at least 2) and draw a straight line to today and claim that's the average growth rate. That's not science, that starting with an answer you want and making the data fit.
Global warming Proponents do the same exact thing when they pick a cold year(s) as the start of their data.
Its quite clear in the gospel what the contemporary historical events were. That you fail to receive the facts while reading not withstanding.
"I would also say that it's not important how old the earth is because even Christ said that not even He knows when God will choose to send Him back"
That is an erroneous paraphrase of what he did say. What he invoked was the common Jewish idiom of the time referring to Yom Kippur, the exact day on which he will return. The only thing in question in that regard is the year.
Nope, neither. I posted a quote.
For an editor, you aren't very good at editing. I'd hate to hire you for survey if your work is that shoddy.
Because Greek was the language of most of the literate of that era. Hebrew was for the priests primarily.
"If we, in this day and age, can calculate it with “complete certainty”, then tell me why in antiquity they were so unsure about the exact date..."
You're speaking of the Romish church that rejected prophecy because they rejected Israel, about whom all prophecy was written. If you too reject prophecy in understanding these events, then don't waste my time replying to me. The Lord's apointed times tell all of God's events, to the minute. His word tells us that is what the stars are for; figure it out.
I indeed reject prophecies that spring out of the idiosyncratic interpretations of men and not the consensus of the universal Church, so yes, if you don’t wish to discuss this anymore then I’ll honor your wishes.
Indeed. None of us knows the day nor the hour, so we wait expectantly.....and when we are with Him, our joy will make all of this seem so much straw. :)
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.