[_ Old Earth _] GenesisTime

[stovebolts]

Can you explain what 'flawed science' has been taught, why it is 'flawed' and what 'theories have been touted as fact' and why they are not 'fact'?

Please explain how intellectual honesty and the Bible conflict?

Can you show us some of this alleged science?

Not with you...

G'day.

 

[jasoncran]

Since it doesn't matter a bit to your salvation, I don't worry about it, unless someone says that you have to believe it this way to be a Christian.

That's no longer Christianity.

sorry. but tes dont preach genesis but evolution first.many christians have fallen away from te type thinking and not drawn closer.

if evolution affects populations and not indivuals then how could there have been an adam and eve?

next, in the ancient jewish sages and we are supposed to view life this way. its the world through the eyes of our faith., not faith through our eyes. nothing and i mean nothing make sense to us in the bible without god showing it to us.

stovebolts will get this.

most of what jesus said on the beatitudes and golden rule was given already to the hebrews, they strayed from that when he came to visit them. yes jesus called his entry into the temple the day of his visitation.

what was changed was the way of repentance and also direct acess to god.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not with you...

G'day.

'No' would have been a shorter answer. Perhaps there are others here who would have been informed by your responses. As it is now, it simply appears to be the case that you are making assertions and allegations you are unable to support.

 

[stovebolts]

'No' would have been a shorter answer. Perhaps there are others here who would have been informed by your responses. As it is now, it simply appears to be the case that you are making assertions and allegations you are unable to support.

Fine would have been a shorter answer as well. As it is now, I know your viewpoint and I know even when your wrong you won't admit it... so why would spend my time...

If you wish to know my case, I believe I posted a one hour video explaining my POV> You are more than welcome to address what Barb has not addressed. Two words, Equal Librium

 

[Barbarian]

Equal Librium

You mean this?
Librium:
Why is this medication prescribed?

Chlordiazepoxide is used to relieve anxiety and to control agitation caused by alcohol withdrawal.
How should this medicine be used?

Chlordiazepoxide comes as a tablet and capsule to take by mouth. It usually is taken one to four times a day with or without food. Follow the directions on your prescription label carefully, and ask your doctor or pharmacist to explain any part you do not understand. Take chlordiazepoxide exactly as directed.

Chlordiazepoxide can be habit-forming. Do not take a larger dose, take it more often, or for a longer time than your doctor tells you to. Tolerance may develop with long-term or excessive use, making the drug less effective. This medication must be taken regularly to be effective. Do not skip doses even if you feel that you do not need them. Do not take chlordiazepoxide for more than 4 months or stop taking this medication without talking to your doctor. Stopping the drug suddenly can worsen your condition and cause withdrawal symptoms (anxiousness, sleeplessness, and irritability). Your doctor probably will decrease your dose gradually.
Other uses for this medicine

Chlordiazepoxide is also used to treat irritable bowel syndrome. Talk to your doctor about the possible risks of using this drug for your condition.

This medication is sometimes prescribed for other uses; ask your doctor or pharmacist for more information.

Or do you mean "equilibrium?"

 

[lordkalvan]

Fine would have been a shorter answer as well. As it is now, I know your viewpoint and I know even when your wrong you won't admit it... so why would spend my time...

If you can show I am wrong about something, I will admit it. As I don't recall you doing this, perhaps you can link to or reference the relevant post(s) where you showed I was wrong and failed to admit it?

If you wish to know my case, I believe I posted a one hour video explaining my POV> You are more than welcome to address what Barb has not addressed.

Does this video explain what 'flawed science' has been taught, why it is 'flawed' and what 'theories have been taught as fact' and why they are not 'fact'? Does it explain how intellectual honesty and the Bible conflict? Does it detail and explain the 'science that supports young earth that is not being taught in schools'?

Two words, Equal Librium

Do you mean equilibrium? If so, in what context do you mean it?

 

[stovebolts]

If you can show I am wrong about something, I will admit it. As I don't recall you doing this, perhaps you can link to or reference the relevant post(s) where you showed I was wrong and failed to admit it?

Does this video explain what 'flawed science' has been taught, why it is 'flawed' and what 'theories have been taught as fact' and why they are not 'fact'? Does it explain how intellectual honesty and the Bible conflict? Does it detail and explain the 'science that supports young earth that is not being taught in schools'?

Do you mean equilibrium? If so, in what context do you mean it?

This is why I won't communicate with you LK. All you had to do is point back to this thread. It's called common courtesy.
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=40260&page=2

 

[lordkalvan]

This is why I won't communicate with you LK. All you had to do is point back to this thread.

What am I supposed to be pointing back to and why?

It's called common courtesy.
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=40260&page=2

How is it 'common courtesy' when I don't have a clue what it is you are talking about when you are telling me to 'point back' to something unspecified? It's also courteous to answer questions in a discussion forum about points you have raised, but I guess that doesn't count so much....

 

[Barbarian]

You're stuck with the New Testament that leaves no doubt that Christ and the Apostles take a literal position as regards the Flood .'

I'd be open to anyone's evidence that if Jesus mentions an allegory from the Bible, that turns it to a literal history. I don't see the logic in that, myself.

 

[stovebolts]

I'd be open to anyone's evidence that if Jesus mentions an allegory from the Bible, that turns it to a literal history. I don't see the logic in that, myself.

Your looking for the wrong evidence and sound as brash as Job.

To know what Jesus thought in many cases is to simply read what the sages wrote. When Jesus was asked questions, they were asking "Who do you side with" and generally it was a reference to either the school of Shamia (sp) or Hillel (sp). From all the questions asked of Jesus, he always sided with Hillel (sp) with the exception of adultery, where he sided with Shamia (sp)

I know I can find writings from Hillel supporting a young earth and given the extremely conservative base of Shamia (sp) I know without even looking that he would support a young earth.

 

[stovebolts]

Your looking for the wrong evidence and sound as brash as Job.

To know what Jesus thought in many cases is to simply read what the sages wrote. When Jesus was asked questions, they were asking "Who do you side with" and generally it was a reference to either the school of Shamia (sp) or Hillel (sp). From all the questions asked of Jesus, he always sided with Hillel (sp) with the exception of adultery, where he sided with Shamia (sp)

I know I can find writings from Hillel supporting a young earth and given the extremely conservative base of Shamia (sp) I know without even looking that he would support a young earth.

Forgot about what Peter said....

1 Peter 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.

Sounds pretty literal to me...

 

[Barbarian]

Doesn't to me, particularly given the language in Genesis. Whether or not there was a flood, we know it wasn't worldwide from the evidence, and Genesis doesn't say there was a worldwide flood.

Neither Jesus nor Peter say that.

 

[stovebolts]

Doesn't to me, particularly given the language in Genesis. Whether or not there was a flood, we know it wasn't worldwide from the evidence, and Genesis doesn't say there was a worldwide flood.

Neither Jesus nor Peter say that.

I disagree. The idea that the world is billions of years old is a recent understanding.

As far as the flood being worldwide, it was and the Biblical authors understood it as worldwide.

As far as evidence, there is ample evidence that the flood was global. You simply refuse to do your research on the matter because you've got so much time invested in old earth. Your heart is hard in this matter.

The idea of plate tectonics was first brought up by a Young Earth advocate and it was rejected by Science, but it came to be that his theory was correct. Here is the rest of the story, but I already know you will not even read it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

 

[Barbarian]

I disagree. The idea that the world is billions of years old is a recent understanding.

I think most of the ancients would be astonished to learn that it was that old. But since the Bible doesn't say how old it is, Christians never made that an article of faith.

As far as the flood being worldwide, it was and the Biblical authors understood it as worldwide.

There is one Author to the Bible, and He doesn't say it's worldwide.

As far as evidence, there is ample evidence that the flood was global.

So far, no one's shown me.

You simply refuse to do your research on the matter because you've got so much time invested in old earth. Your heart is hard in this matter.

God has a lot of time invested in it, too. But it's not something that a heart can be hard or soft on. It's just a scientific question, not a religious one. At least it isn't for Christians.

The idea of plate tectonics was first brought up by a Young Earth advocate

No, the idea of moving continents was first brought up by Abraham Ortels in the 1500s, but plate tectonics was first formulated in the 1960s. Young Earth creationists appeared in the early 1900s, but none of them had the training or the data to work out plate tectonics.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...late-tectonics

First, they got the story wrong about who first surmised that continents move. Second, they conflated the ideas about continental drift and plate tectonics.

And last, they don't seem to realize the process is still going on, a few centimeters a year. You see, if it had happened in the flood year, all that energy would have to be removed as heat. The oceans would have cooked everything.

I can work up the calculations, if you like.

BTW, Columbus' voyage was about 8 meters shorter in 1492, than it would be today.

 

[ExtraMedium]

Just a quick couple of notes

Water on the earth is in a finite amount. It can not be created or destroyed, only transformed into one of the other two forms of the Hydrological Cycle (water, steam, ice - as in a liquid, gas or steam form). Thus if God opened "the heavens" and dumped water for 40days/nights, then where is that water now? (Unless of course the earth had much less water and the earth we live in now is the after-product of the global flood). Also, that much water would increase it's mass, probably by about 5 times, thus adding more weight to it. Since the earth spinning is at a constant rate, thus no energy is authenticating an acceleration (negative or positive), this means the added weight would cause the earth's revolutions to slow, meaning before the flood, days might have only been about 4 to 7 hours long. This might account for people being able to live to be 900+ since the actual day was shorter. Perhaps?

Another play on words. "world". World is a relative term. A "world-wide" flood means a local flood. Like in my cat's 'world' it only knows the inside of our house, yet the earth has much more it doesn't know about. My son's 'world' is only a small portion of California that he's been exposed to. So in the case of Noah, maybe it was a world-wide flood, impacting his local surroundings and only 8 survived, that he was aware of?

Or maybe I just need more coffee.

 

[Barbarian]

And Peter's use of "oikoumene" does not translate well to "world." It translates more like "civilization" or "empire."

 

[zeke]

And Peter's use of "oikoumene" does not translate well to "world." It translates more like "civilization" or "empire."

Not quite correct...

oikoumene - the inhabited earth...the universe, the world
~ The New Testament Greek Lexicon​

 

[Barbarian]

Ah, quote-mining again. Here's what it actually says:
Oikoumene
the inhabited earth the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire the whole inhabited earth, the world the inhabitants of the earth, men the universe, the world
Lexicons - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard - Oikoumene

And in 2 Peter 3:6, it's
δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο:

κόσμος (genitive κόσμου) m, second declension; (kosmos)

order
lawful order, government
mode, fashion
ornament, decoration
honour, credit
ruler
world, universe, the earth
mankind

Clearly doesn't say what you want it to.

 

[zeke]

Ah, quote-mining again. Here's what it actually says:
Oikoumene
the inhabited earth the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire the whole inhabited earth, the world the inhabitants of the earth, men the universe, the world
Lexicons - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard - Oikoumene

And in 2 Peter 3:6, it's
δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο:

κόσμος (genitive κόσμου) m, second declension; (kosmos)

order
lawful order, government
mode, fashion
ornament, decoration
honour, credit
ruler
world, universe, the earth
mankind

Clearly doesn't say what you want it to.

Can it mean - "world, universe, the earth" in your theology?

 

[Barbarian]

Given that Genesis doesn't say "whole world", and that the words you want to make "whole world" have numerous possible definitions, and given that the evidence does not support a world-wide flood, isn't it time for you to just accept that God did it the way He did?