[_ Old Earth _] If you reject knowledge because of the messenger dont bother

[Ashua]

Evidence can be interpreted in many ways and I dont think radiometric dating and the geologic column hold their weight in dung. I have scientific citations to back it up too.

By all means, let's see them. And while we're at it, what is your explanation for the correlation of different dating methods as indicated by the above graphs? Which particular strata do you suggest were laid down by the noachian flood?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48782&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

And as far as the strata go, most likely "all of them;" although the Genesis creation account of the forming of the "void" and laying of waters and so fourth could have been responsible with a secondary affect by the flood.

 

[jwu]

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48782&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

The first ones i saw were the misdated molluscs...hardly surprising, as marine animals don't obtain their C14 from the atmosphere. Such a result was to be expected if one uses a dating method on something that it is not eligible for.
Doesn't it bother you that whoever assembled that list for you used such dishonest ways, by intentioally misapplying the dating methods?

After skimming over them, there doesn't seem to be anything on the list that hasn't been long since known and thoroughly refuted. Typically these are misapplications of the methods. E.g. in case of the misdated lava streams the samples were not properly cleansed of xenoliths.

Anyway, please at least try to explain the correlation of dating methods. If they were as flawed as you imply they are, that correlation should not exist, should it?

And as far as the strata go, most likely "all of them."

Please be specific and fix the goalposts. Also, what would you accept as evidence that a particular stratum is not of deluvial origin? Do you also agree that a particular stratum would have to be of marine origin all around the globe, without exception, to possibly be the result of a global deluge?

 

[Ashua]

I edited my post. I dont know if thats sufficient for your question. (sufficient in the sense that it attempts your question. not that you are convinced.)

What would I accept for contrary evidence? I dont know? Present it and Ill look at it.

 

[jwu]

Then please name a stratum that you suggest as one that formed as a deluvian one all around the globe. I'll then try to find evidence that at it formed subaerially, not subaquatically, at least somewhere. That would be evidence that this particular stratum does not belong to a globe spanning deluge.

 

[Ashua]

I never said the stratum form evenly or universally. Do the soil in glass experiment. It doesnt distribute into even stratum either. The Genesis creation and formation of earth and the oceans and the land is vague but it certainly could have formed some of them. The 'fountains of the deep" which are still active might have some sort of implications. The flood isnt the only thing but its the most obvious Biblical event.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that early Christians argued that it was absurd to talk of mornings without a sun to have them.

Who's definition?

In every language I've heard about, "morning" means when the sun appears in the east. It doesn't mean "a big light in the sky."

Revelation 21:23-25

23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Nothing about morrning...

25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Ah, so there won't be mornings. Just light all the time.

The scriptures conclude that a "day" is when the overwhelming presence of light falls upon the land.

No. It means "when the sun appears in the east." "Big light" doesn't translate to "morning."

The sun does not define a day.

But the point is, it does define "morning."

morn·ing
?–noun
1.
the first part or period of the day, extending from dawn, or from midnight, to noon.
2.
the beginning of day; dawn: Morning is almost here.
3.
the first or early period of anything; beginning: the morning of life.

Read it for what it says.

That's why Christians knew it wasn't literal days. No sun, no morning. By definition.

The Bible calls whales fish and bats birds.

Actually, not. For example, the word for birds and bats translates to "flying things."

You rationalize day by the sun--and that is the primal conclusion, given Human beings have only known the sun as a source of light and that the sun is a governor ordained by God to reign over the day.

The word "morning" has a meaning, which rules out literal days in Genesis. You can "prove" anything about scripture, if you re-define words to make it work.

But I think we should accept Scripture as it is, not as we'd like it to be.

 

[jasoncran]

the word for world was kosmos, so if just the local even then why use that world.

That'd the point though - the Greek version already is a translation, not the original. The original term, "eretz" in Hebrew, is not correctly translated as kosmos.

so using that word, was the original for this verse, jn 3;16. peter spoke and wrote in what lanugage in 2 peter and jesus spoke aramiac, so if its for god so love this "land that he gave his only begotten son to die for it. then only the children of isreal are to be saved.

a problem indeed.

with peter he used kosmos for the old world being judge by water, so what original language was spoken by peter, aramaic. or koine greek. when he wrote the epistles.

 

[Ashua]

Barbarian notes that early Christians argued that it was absurd to talk of mornings without a sun to have them.

You mean the same ones who changed Sabbath to sunday and replaced Passover with easter in honor of ishtar, the pagan fertility goddess?

Anyways, without sarcasm I am a little interested to see what you are alluding to. Where is the record of this contention contained? (You said early Christians argued that it was absurd, but who were they arguing with? Other early Christians?) Many of the events in the Bible are "absurd". The wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. He uses the weak and beggarly things to confound the wise.

 

[jasoncran]

i'm curious to how barb reconciles that with warning from peter on the flood.

 

[Barbarian]

i'm curious to how barb reconciles that with warning from peter on the flood.

The evidence indicates that there was a flood. It just wasn't worldwide. The error in translating "eretz" as " ??????" is obvious.

 

[Barbarian]

Anyways, without sarcasm I am a little interested to see what you are alluding to. Where is the record of this contention contained? (You said early Christians argued that it was absurd, but who were they arguing with? Other early Christians?)

St. Augustine in "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis", for example, and Origen.

Many of the events in the Bible are "absurd".

None of them are, although sometimes people have absurd interpretations. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine for example, is absurd, but it isn't what Genesis actually says.

 

[Ashua]

Anyways, without sarcasm I am a little interested to see what you are alluding to. Where is the record of this contention contained? (You said early Christians argued that it was absurd, but who were they arguing with? Other early Christians?)

St. Augustine in "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis", for example, and Origen.

[quote:y3i3up3z] Many of the events in the Bible are "absurd".

None of them are, although sometimes people have absurd interpretations. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine for example, is absurd, but it isn't what Genesis actually says.[/quote:y3i3up3z]

So the Red Sea never actually parted? There was no walking on water or turning water into blood? Those things arent 'absurd'?

I thought you were talking about an actual organized conference in the early church. Not the writings of one or two early Christian theologians.

 

[jasoncran]

i'm curious to how barb reconciles that with warning from peter on the flood.

The evidence indicates that there was a flood. It just wasn't worldwide. The error in translating "eretz" as " ??????" is obvious.

that makes all modern bibles in error barb including yours.

i doubt the translators missed that one.

 

[Barbarian]

So the Red Sea never actually parted? There was no walking on water or turning water into blood? Those things arent 'absurd'?

No. "Absurd" means "logically contradictory." The miraculous is possible with God. The logically contradictory is not, if for no other reason, He will not be logically contradictory. Miracles happen. But thinks like a morning with no sun to have it did not.

I thought you were talking about an actual organized conference in the early church. Not the writings of one or two early Christian theologians.

Augustine is the most respected of the early Christian theologians. He is a Doctor of the Church in Catholicism, a Father of the Church in Eastern Orthodoxy, and the theological inspiration for Luther and Calvin.

More than just another theologian.

 

[Barbarian]

that makes all modern bibles in error barb including yours.

i doubt the translators missed that one.

It was a rather late error. You see, until modern YE creationism, it wasn't an issue. It was never Christian orthodoxy that the flood was literal; some saw it that way, but no one seems to have figured it covered the entire globe.

 

[Ashua]

So the Red Sea never actually parted? There was no walking on water or turning water into blood? Those things arent 'absurd'?

No. "Absurd" means "logically contradictory." The miraculous is possible with God. The logically contradictory is not, if for no other reason, He will not be logically contradictory. Miracles happen. But thinks like a morning with no sun to have it did not.

[quote:1snajro9]I thought you were talking about an actual organized conference in the early church. Not the writings of one or two early Christian theologians.

Augustine is the most respected of the early Christian theologians. He is a Doctor of the Church in Catholicism, a Father of the Church in Eastern Orthodoxy, and the theological inspiration for Luther and Calvin.

More than just another theologian.[/quote:1snajro9]


So, you wouldn't call morning without the sun miraculous? How do you reckon Joshua's long day?

I thought Clement was even more prominent than Augustine? Oh well, it doesn't matter either way. Augustine was not a prophet, nor an apostle; therefore when he contradicts the words of the prophets and apostles, his popularity is void. If rightness is reckoned in terms of being most respected, Messiah would rank pretty low by his contemporaries. You are the very first person I have encountered who actually has argued this-- arguing old earth from an historical Christian perspective. I seriously have never heard this before.

Early church writings on the scriptures are no different than modern Judaism's babylonian talmud. --a man-made fallible commentary that is not necessarily compatible with the word of God.

 

[jasoncran]

late error, barb. provide some proof of that, i use a kjv that one 1768 revision of the 1611 one. the kjv itself was based on the textus recipticus, and btw the king james was a catholic not a protestant at the time of the commision.

 

[Barbarian]

late error, barb. provide some proof of that,

"Eretz" doesn't translate to "kosmos." That's all there is to say about it.

i use a kjv that one 1768 revision of the 1611 one. the kjv itself was based on the textus recipticus, and btw the king james was a catholic not a protestant at the time of the commision.

King James was a Catholic to the end. But even a Catholic can make a mistake.

 

[jasoncran]

so then care to ask that all translation be thrown out and modifed to fit the translation according to darwin.

better correct the doctrine of rcc infant baptism and baptism by sprinkling after baptiso means to immerse, not sprinkle.

 

[Barbarian]

so then care to ask that all translation be thrown out and modifed to fit the translation according to darwin.

The translation is an error; it's not what was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

better correct the doctrine of rcc infant baptism and baptism by sprinkling after baptiso means to immerse, not sprinkle.

In fact, the mere desire to accept God is sufficient if water is not available. BTW, Catholics can and sometimes do immersion, although it's not required.

Remember Paul says that baptism is the replacement for circumcision:

Colossians 2:11In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: [12] Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead. [13] And you, when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: [14] Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross: [15] And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself.

Did the Jews circumcise adults or infants?

Acts 16:33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately. [34] And when he had brought them into his own house, he laid the table for them, and rejoiced with all his house, believing God.

So the Apostles baptized children routinely. There is nothing whatever in Scripture about waiting until one is older to be baptized.