Hold it, I think I found the ninth man
Posted on 05/29/2006 6:28:25 AM PDT by truthfinder9
You just restated what I said in a different way. The llth dimension, or 2nd time dimension, can be used for another being (outside of all time lines) to interact with mankind.
"On the Spiritual side, it also helps our understanding of pre-destination (and prophesy) v. free-will."
True. See Beyond the Cosmos for how multi-dimensional physics impacts Christian beliefs.
" also assert that the notion God is on any time is illogical per se."
I agree with that and never implied otherwise. The creator of the universe, by defintion, would have to be independent of it.
"Also I disagree with you that Genesis 1:2 establishes that God’s time is our time"
That's not exactly what I meant. God didn't make our time his time in Gen 1:2, he entered our time to interact with our world. That doesn't mean he was bound by our time, but it did signify a shift in the point of view that the author was writing from.
"I expect the Father’s revelation in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in Scripture and in the Creation to agree "
I have been promoting this view all along, with the point that young-earth creationism prevents that belief from being fullfilled.
"God is Truth – and the Scriptures are Truth because He is the author."
True, but how often do people misunderstand the truth? Whole cults have been based on misunderstandings and bad interpretations (Mormonism, JW, etc). Because something is truth, doesn't mean it is going to be understood perfectly. Some people seem to think so, but that undermines the basic beliefs about man's sinful nature.
As for the theories such as Schroeder's, there is one fatal flaw. He forgets that regardless of what occured after the big bang instant, everything in the universe experienced the same time. It could very well by different relative to something outside the universe, but that is meaningless. More simply, everything in the universe was on the same "ride" so regardless of accleration changes, etc., a hypothetical person on the ride woudln't notice any time changes. This is just like an astronaut in orbit, who's clock actually slows down a miniscule fraction of a second, but he would never know unless he compares it to a precise clock on Earth.
There comes a time when you just have to throw up your hands and walk away. I think we've reached that point.
Your point is quite well taken, xzins. We all seem to be in agreement about what the scripture says. It says that the creation was a six day event. Normally you take the plain meaning of a text to determine what it means. In this case the scriptures clearly say that the creation was a six day event and the flood was a worldwide event. If, for some reason, you decide that you don't want to believe that, then you can start looking for some hidden meanings within the text.
Augustine felt that the literal six day period was not consistent with the Glory of a God who could clearly create the whole universe by simply speaking it into existence. Thus he thought that it took away from the Glory of God to suggest that God actually had to work at creation. So he took an allegorical approach to the plain meaning of the scriptures in order to fit the scriptures to his pre-concieved (or deduced, if you will) concepts about God.
But any honest scholar will agree with Barr, that the plain meaning of Genesis Chapter 1 conveys the idea that the whole creation gook place over a period of 144 hours.
As I stated on another thread, Jesus turned water into wine in the span of about a nanosecond. The wine that he created was wine which by all appearances was 10 years in the making (from seed to vine to grapes to wine). So if the earth has the "appearance" of being 4.5 billion years old, is it too much to wonder that God, in his infinite power, created the earth in eternity in a period of time equal to six days? No. In fact Augustine thought it ridiculous to think that it should take God that long to do it.
If we believe that Jesus could turn water into wine in a nanosecond, is it too much to believe that by the same process of miracle (outside the laws of nature and outside the constraints of the time dimension) could do all the work of creation over a period of 144 hours?
"I understand from some other post that you might be some variety of theistic evolutionist. Is that correct?"
No, I'm not sure where you got that. Not from my posts anyway.
"The nature of the story being told in Genesis 1 does not suggest other than a normal day.....evening & morning were day one...two...three....etc."
Not true at all. For example:
The Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. There are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refer to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.
The attaching of an ordinal (such as “first”) or other appendage (such as “long”) to day does not always indicate a 24-hour day. See Zechariah 14:7, which uses “one day” or “a day” depending on the translation and Hosea 6:2. Scholars have long interpreted the use of day in these prophetic verses as meaning years or longer periods. There is no good reason to dismiss these examples simply because they are considered prophecy. In 1 Samuel 7:2, the word for day is translated as “long time” or “the time was long” and refers to twenty years. In Deuteronomy 10:10, day is translated as “the first time” and refers to forty days. In 1 Chronicles 29:27 the word for day is translated as “the time” and refers to forty years (some translations leave it out since the context makes it repetitive).
etc.
But beyond the Hebrew, consider these:
The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, the text specifically states that the land produced plants and trees. After they were produced, the text refers to seed bearing fruit being produced by these trees. Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees require several years to mature before they produce fruit. Note the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) [not evolutionary processes, but normal plant processes] and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a “day” could not have been only 24 hours long.
We see that when God rested, he ceased creating and each “day” previous to that was closed out. The seventh day is not closed out like the others. As each of the previous days represent eras before man (and the sixth includes early man), the “seventh day” is mankind’s entire existence up to and including the present. The Bible speaks of the Sabbath not being closed out (as indicated in Hebrews 4) until the new creation when God starts creating again (Revelation 21). Either the days preceding the seventh are 24-hour days, making Genesis 2:2 in error, or they are long periods of time, making the verses consistent and correct.
etc.
Well we have a problem for the NT says
1Pe 3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The ninth guy must have been a lawyer.
You have totally forgotten to factor into your response that of the 2200 times day is used, about 1800 of them have the word meaning simply day.
In ONLY 8 instances can it clearly be interpreted as "age."
Therefore, the translation as "age" is far, far more rare than the translation as "day." If the expression "evening and morning" supports anything, it supports the COMMON usage of the word.
If God is making things "appear" old then he is deceitful, which is why even most young-earthers have abandoned the appearance of age argument. And where does the Bible state the wine was 10 years old? Not all good wine is aged nor is all aged wine considered good.
"But any honest scholar will agree with Barr"
Here's a combination logical fallacy, redefining which scholars are honest with ad hominem implications. I guess this Barr is infallible? That's a third fallacy, pointing to one authority while ignoring the others.
"Normally you take the plain meaning of a text to determine what it means."
By definition, a "plain" meaning would not have contradictions and it would consider context, point of view, etc. Young-earthism doesn't meet this test.
"So he took an allegorical approach to the plain meaning of the scriptures in order to fit the scriptures to his pre-conceived (or deduced, if you will) concepts about God."
I think everyone here will agree that statement is absurd. You are inventing why Augustine wrote what he did because he doesn't agree with you and Barr!
must have been a lawyer.......
Two lawyers were out hunting when they came upon a pair of tracks. They stopped and examined the tracks closely. The first lawyer announced, "Those are deer tracks. It's deer season, so we should follow the tracks and find our prey." The second lawyer responded,"Those are clearly elk tracks, and elk are out of season. If we follow your advice, we'll waste the day." Each attorney believed himself to be the superior woodsmen, and they both bitterly stuck to their guns.
They were still arguing when the train hit them.
Yes, King Og Umentim
Your statistical example doesn't work, here's on reason why:
There are 358 yoms with an ordinal modifier that are considered 24hr days, so YECS claim the Genesis yoms are 24hr days. But 249 of those yoms are in the context of human activity. Genesis 1 speaks of divine activity, indicating diferent yoms (because God isn't bound by human time).
And quite obviously, as I posted, the ordinal modifer and "evening and morning" support this conclusion.
There's probably a half dozen examples like this that reveal that the YEC attempts to count yoms meaning this or that convienently ignore the whole picture.
But all wine takes time, and this wine instantaneously appeared out of what had been water.
It appears to me that most of your halfway cogent arguments are simply cut and pasted from Hugh Ross' website. Indeed, it appears that every sentence in this post of yours has been cut and pasted from that site without acknowledgment.
Generally in a debate you use your own words and convey your own thoughts unless you are quoting from a third party source and you give the cite for that quote.
It seems that each time someone brings up a challenging point on this thread, you simply attempt to refute it with some canned answer from reasons.org.
Can you make these same arguments on your own using your own words? The strength of your argument lies in your own ability to defend your position. Pulling canned quotes from unsourced articles simply does not cut it. How abour discussing these issues using your own words?
The story's point is that God is "so" obviously God that He snaps His fingers and in a short week has an entire universe. Find me ANY hint in this story of sitting around drumming His fingers waiting millions of years for "let there be light" to finally finish baking in the oven. It ain't there.
Actually, the idea that God takes tens of billions of years to accomplish paints a particularly unusual type of God....in fact, no "God" at all.
More a putterer or a tinkerer type of God....A MIRACLE MAX of "The Princess Bride!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A scientist was performing an experiment on the verbal reactions of fleas. He had trained a flea to jump on command. The scientist would command the flea, "Jump flea!" and the flea would jump. Then the scientist would proceed to pull off one of the fleas legs with a pair of tweezers and write a comment in his notebook.
The scientist did this many times until the flea had only one leg left. The scientist commanded, "Jump flea!" and the flea made its best effort to jump, which the scientist recorded in his notebook.
After he pulled off its last leg, the scientist again commanded the flea to jump, and after repeating the command many times without the flea responding he jotted down in his notebook, "After the flea loses all of its legs it becomes completely deaf."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I believe that the only reason it took God a full six days (144 hours) to accomplish his purpose was because he meant it to be a lesson on the Sabbath and making a day of rest and reflection (which lesson is clearly taught in Exodus Chapter 20).
If he had not purposed to use the creation events as a lesson to man, he would have done it instantly (as Augustine believed). I think Augustine may have missed the Sabbatical lesson and that is why he insisted that it did not take 6 days, as this would have implied that God actually NEEDED time to complete his work. He didn't. But he obviously took the time anyway.
Hold it, I think I found the ninth man
Hey P-M, did you hear the one about the Retired Army Chaplain who thought he was a comedien?
I've heard literally thousands of lawyer jokes, but I don't think I've ever heard a Retired Army Chaplain joke.
Hey, x, you heard any good Retired Army Chaplain jokes lately?
I have heard that one...
:>)
I heard he was absolutely brilliant, devastatingly handsome, uproariously funny, and stunningly good looking.
That's real common with retired Army Chaplains. :>)
See #179
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.