Old Earth

[aspen]

Our soul is what God first breathed into Adam and has been passed down to ALL mankind through pro-creation. It is what distinguishes us from ALL other life. IMO, Jesus had the biggest influence in the early Christian Church and He was NOT influenced by Plato. There is no doubt Plato has had influence in secular thought and hence that society, but to contribute the import of the NT to Plato is IMO sacrilegious.

The point is nobody knows because their is NO frame of reference. Your assertion is based on your knowledge and science theory, which is NOT proven. I will stick with God's word.

Ok, right out of the gate, your claim that I am somehow 'contributing the import of the NT to Plato'' which doesn't even make sense, is idiotic. The writers of the Bible were influenced by their culture, Stan - sorry to break it to you. The use of the word Sophia for the word wisdom in the OT is another example of Greek influence - and Sophia was the Greek god of wisdom - so if you want to get all crazy about sacrilege, take it up with God.

Furthermore, there was no concept of the word soul, as spirit in the Hebrew lexicon. This is not my idea - it is a fact of history. Look up Genesis 2:7 - God breathed spirit into Adam and he became a living soul (body/spirit). This is pretty basic stuff, Stan; whatever you choose to "stick" to

 

[StanJ]

Ok, right out of the gate, your claim that I am somehow 'contributing the import of the NT to Plato'' which doesn't even make sense, is idiotic. The writers of the Bible were influenced by their culture, Stan - sorry to break it to you. The use of the word Sophia for the word wisdom in the OT is another example of Greek influence - and Sophia was the Greek god of wisdom - so if you want to get all crazy about sacrilege, take it up with God.

Furthermore, there was no concept of the word soul, as spirit in the Hebrew lexicon. This is not my idea - it is a fact of history. Look up Genesis 2:7 - God breathed spirit into Adam and he became a living soul (body/spirit). This is pretty basic stuff, Stan; whatever you choose to "stick" to

OK, well, you said it so I guess the idiocy started with that post? Are you saying you don't understand the word "import"?
The NT was WRITTEN in Greek, so if that's what you mean by influence then granted, but it's tantamount to saying God's inspiration had no effect because the Greek influence was greater than God could handle. THAT is ludicrous. Adopting a different WORD for wisdom in the Koine Greek as opposed to what it was in the ancient Greek, phronesis, does not mean there is a influence in the NT. It's just the language. If that's what you were referring to then I agree, but that's not how it came across.

I'm pretty sure that was my point when I initially addressed this, that the word soul in Genesis is more correctly rendered as being, so it's not to be confused with soul as our eternal spirit. Apparently it's not basic if so many equivocate about the word soul, now is it? Annihilists use soul to show that our spirit dies when in the KJV it should not read soul but life.

I'm not really sure what got your knickers in a knot, but hopefully this will untwist them.

 

[JimParker]

If it didn't have to do with time, then God wouldn't have inspired Moses to use time to show it. The issue is not why it took God 6 days, but just that it did. It is not something that was or is up for discussion by the faithful.
The grammar has been proven to properly connote 6 days much as we understand them today. Remember that the gate is NARROW, and FEW there are that enter in. Genesis communicates exactly what God intended it to convey...His wondrous power of creation and when He did it.

The point is that those who believe what Moses wrote don't try to refute science because most of us don't have the prerequisite knowledge. By the same token though no one who supports the science actually knows it all, but just believes it all. NO one has seen ALL the data sets and I can only surmise that includes everyone of this forum that purports to know. Therefore I believe God despite what unbelievers purport and some believers have given into.

I am with Paul when he states; Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

Thank you for trying.

Unfortunately you did not address the last paragraph of my post:

If one is going to refute the astronomers and astrophysicists' calculations of the age of the universe,
then one must be prepared to demonstrate exactly where every last one of them erred in making those
calculations. And, no, the proof of their alleged error is not found in the 6 days of Genesis 1.

So, please, Stan, tell us. Exactly what mathematical, measurement, or observational error(s) did every single astronomer/astrophysicist make? (That's about math and science, Stan, not about Moses.)

 

[JimParker]

Awesome post! Well said!

"Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?" -Isaiah 40:12

Thank you for encouraging my behavior.

 

[StanJ]

So, please, Stan, tell us. Exactly what mathematical, measurement, or observational error(s) did every single astronomer/astrophysicist make? (That's about math and science, Stan, not about Moses.)

It's not my job to refute the scientists, that is up to the scientists themselves.

My job as a Christian, is to believe God's written Word, which is do. If science speaks against it, then it is wrong. If you speak against it, then you are wrong.

If you believe the science, then show it as something observable with observable facts. This is a CHRISTIAN forum, not a science forum.
The starting point is the belief that God's Word is TRUE.

 

[JimParker]

It's not my job to refute the scientists, that is up to the scientists themselves.

My job as a Christian, is to believe God's written Word, which is do. If science speaks against it, then it is wrong. If you speak against it, then you are wrong.

If you believe the science, then show it as something observable with observable facts. This is a CHRISTIAN forum, not a science forum.
The starting point is the belief that God's Word is TRUE.

Wrong again, Stanley.

That is the logical fallacy called "Burden of Proof."


Since YOU said the scientists are wrong, it is YOUR responsibility to show exactly why their conclusions are wrong ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS, not on the basis o your personal interpretation of scripture.

Using your personal understanding of scripture is the logical fallacy called, "Appeal to Authority". (Because you are NOT an authority.)

 

[lforrest]

Wrong again, Stanley.

That is the logical fallacy called "Burden of Proof."


Since YOU said the scientists are wrong, it is YOUR responsibility to show exactly why their conclusions are wrong ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS, not on the basis o your personal interpretation of scripture.

Using your personal understanding of scripture is the logical fallacy called, "Appeal to Authority". (Because you are NOT an authority.)

Here is a logical fallacy... you want Stan to refute scientific theories on a scientific basis even though he isn't a scientist.

It is sufficient for him to find any basis for rejecting a scientific theory, and scripture is more than sufficient if it is correctly understood and applicable.

It is not his responsibility to make you believe what the bible says. Stan is more gracious than I am for trying.

 

[JimParker]

Here is a logical fallacy... you want Stan to refute scientific theories on a scientific basis even though he isn't a scientist.

It is sufficient for him to find any basis for rejecting a scientific theory, and scripture is more than sufficient if it is correctly understood and applicable.

It is not his responsibility to make you believe what the bible says. Stan is more gracious than I am for trying.

<< Here is a logical fallacy... you want Stan to refute scientific theories on a scientific basis even though he isn't a scientist. >>

If He's saying that the science is wrong and calling scientists, "so-called scientists" (ie: frauds) then he needs to be able to clearly show exactly why they are wrong and frauds.

It is not my demanding a scientific proof that the science is wrong which is illogical; it is Stan's proclamation that it is wrong when he is incapable of analyzing and critically commenting on their work which is illogical. It is the equivalent of one's barber pontificating about neurosurgical procedures based on something he read in "Barber's Monthly Magazine."

<< It is sufficient for him to find any basis for rejecting a scientific theory >>

This isn't about "him." It's about his publicized position that all scientists are wrong and/or frauds and his assertion that his personal opinion on the meaning of scripture is of greater weight than the multitude of scientists who, by careful observation and calculations have come to peer-reviewed conclusions as to the age of the universe. These scientists are highly trained in their field. Stan is an amateur theologian.

Is "any basis" really sufficient? How about, "My momma told me."? Or how about; "I read it in "Rolling Stone Magazine."? Is any source of information "sufficient" to draw a reasonable conclusion even if tat source is uneducated and ignorant in the field?

<< scripture is more than sufficient if it is correctly understood and applicable. >>

AS Stan is not a scientist, he has demonstrated that neither is he a competent theologian. So, the chances of scripture being "correctly understood" by him is slim.

And scripture is NOT sufficient to address scientific issues because, in fact, it does not address scientific issues. It addresses theological issues, not science.

<< It is not his responsibility to make you believe what the bible says >>

I didn't say it was and he is not capable of "making" me believe anything.

I challenged him to prove his assertion that astronomers/astrophysicists in particular (and scientists in general) are all totally wrong about the age of the universe. And it needs to be done using the appropriate scientific sources and data. Since scripture is not a science book, it is not a appropriate source for information concerning the accuracy of scientific observations, measurements, and calculations.

The "young earth" doctrine starts from a presupposition that the earth is less than 10,000 years old based on scripture and that scripture does not address the age of the earth. The "six, twenty-four hour days of creation" is not scientific data; it is part of the genealogy of the heavens and the earth. It is the introduction to the Pentateuch, which is the story of who the Jews are, not a scientific presentation of the origins of the universe.

 

[StanJ]

Wrong again, Stanley.

That is the logical fallacy called "Burden of Proof."


Since YOU said the scientists are wrong, it is YOUR responsibility to show exactly why their conclusions are wrong ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS, not on the basis o your personal interpretation of scripture.

Using your personal understanding of scripture is the logical fallacy called, "Appeal to Authority". (Because you are NOT an authority.)

If it's a logical fallacy then why would I bother addressing it?

I don't find, God does and I find ANY Christian that accepts them as right OVER God to be wrong. I have no responsibility whatsoever to prove God right.

2 Tim 2:15 (NIV) says different.

 

[StanJ]

The "young earth" doctrine starts from a presupposition that the earth is less than 10,000 years old based on scripture and that scripture does not address the age of the earth. The "six, twenty-four hour days of creation" is not scientific data; it is part of the genealogy of the heavens and the earth. It is the introduction to the Pentateuch, which is the story of who the Jews are, not a scientific presentation of the origins of the universe.

Actually it starts with the belief that God's Word is true and correct. It's not a preposition, but your view is because you have no idea about what actually goes into the science. You're just fooled by the bluff like many other are. Sadly many Christians are as well.
Gen 1 is not meant to be science in any way shape or form, but as you and your cognitive dissonance cannot reconcile the two, you push the latter to the detriment of the former. YOUR loss. As a true believer, I know which side is true and which isn't. God is TRUE.

 

[JimParker]

If it's a logical fallacy then why would I bother addressing it?

I don't find, God does and I find ANY Christian that accepts them as right OVER God to be wrong. I have no responsibility whatsoever to prove God right.

2 Tim 2:15 (NIV) says different.

<< If it's a logical fallacy then why would I bother addressing it? >>

Good question; why should I bother responding to your logic-void statements?

I was pointing out that your statement was illogical. Apparently that got by you.

<<I don't find, God does...>>

No and NO! What you are positing is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, not God's.

<<I have no responsibility whatsoever to prove God right.>>

No one asked you to. :wacko:

I asked you to demonstrate that YOU are right in your very arrogant and absurd contention that all the scientists who have concluded taht the universe is some 13.5 billion years old are wrong, but YOU (who is not a trained scientist) are right.

<<2 Tim 2:15 (NIV) says different.>>

That verse does not address "proving God right." But it does shed light upon your ability to "rightly handle the word of truth" as you didn't even get the meaning of your "proof text" right.

 

[JimParker]

Actually it starts with the belief that God's Word is true and correct. It's not a preposition, but your view is because you have no idea about what actually goes into the science. You're just fooled by the bluff like many other are. Sadly many Christians are as well.
Gen 1 is not meant to be science in any way shape or form, but as you and your cognitive dissonance cannot reconcile the two, you push the latter to the detriment of the former. YOUR loss. As a true believer, I know which side is true and which isn't. God is TRUE.

<<Actually it starts with the belief that God's Word is true and correct.>>

Wrong again, Stanly!

It starts with YOUR poor understanding of the book of Genesis. You have started from an incorrect understanding of Genesis 1 as a time-line (which it is not) instead of the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which is used to introduce the story of "us". (The Jews)

God's word IS true and correct.

Your understanding of God's word is a mess.

<<God is TRUE.>>

He is indeed! But you are thoroughly confused.

 

[BlackManINC]

Actually it starts with the belief that God's Word is true and correct. It's not a preposition, but your view is because you have no idea about what actually goes into the science. You're just fooled by the bluff like many other are. Sadly many Christians are as well.
Gen 1 is not meant to be science in any way shape or form, but as you and your cognitive dissonance cannot reconcile the two, you push the latter to the detriment of the former. YOUR loss. As a true believer, I know which side is true and which isn't. God is TRUE.

JimParker is one of many so called "Christians" who like to sit here and pretend to be very scientifically literate, yet in their folly in adhering to science falsely so called, to the various totally made up gap theories, 'just so' stories of how they claim the we got here, and in some cases, outright frauds (piltdown man), they show just how Bible illiterate they really are. It doesn't matter if the issue is global warming or evolution, the glaring issues with these people is as obvious as the sun itself. They commit a most heinous crime by adding and removing the things stated in the Bible, with their own works based private interpretations.

 

[StanJ]

Good question; why should I bother responding to your logic-void statements?

I was pointing out that your statement was illogical. Apparently that got by you.

No and NO! What you are positing is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, not God's.

No one asked you to.

I asked you to demonstrate that YOU are right in your very arrogant and absurd contention that all the scientists who have concluded that the universe is some 13.5 billion years old are wrong, but YOU (who is not a trained scientist) are right.

That verse does not address "proving God right." But it does shed light upon your ability to "rightly handle the word of truth" as you didn't even get the meaning of your "proof text" right.

Because you like to see yourself in type?

Not what you said, but then again you have demonstrated a lack of understanding basic English

Yes and yes...what I' show you is God's word, but I'm not responsible to make you see it, God is. Apparently many years of ignoring what His word says in favor of men is now the reason you reap unbelief.

Sure, you do, every time you say science disproves God's word, which of course it doesn't. If God's word is true, then the science can't be. It simple.

Exactly, it addresses studying God's word so that we can KNOW how to understand it. As you never use God's word but just what scientists say it is obvious your don't KNOW God's word. Studying doesn't just happen in a classroom, it happens throughout life.

 

[StanJ]

Wrong again, Stanly!
It starts with YOUR poor understanding of the book of Genesis. You have started from an incorrect understanding of Genesis 1 as a time-line (which it is not) instead of the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which is used to introduce the story of "us". (The Jews)

God's word IS true and correct.

Your understanding of God's word is a mess.

He is indeed! But you are thoroughly confused.

[/QUOTE]Not quite Jimmy
I just can't be bothered continually posting the same facts about the Hebrew language to people who refuse to acknowledge the truth that scholars present, especially when scripture itself confirms the time frames of Genesis, in Exodus, by the very same writer of Genesis.

Then why don't you believe it?

It's not MY understand, it is basic Hebrew grammar 101, but then again I guess you flunked that class?

Not at all, just clear on the issue. Wish I could say the same for you.

The usage of the word "day," with a number, means a 24-hour period. The absence of the article does not alter that meaning. Further, the use of "evening" and "morning" indicates that normal time is meant in Genesis 1. God, Himself, said that the creation took only six days. We also must ask ourselves, did Moses and God deceive us by using the word "day," when it really was a long period of time? If our answer is yes, then we should not use the Bible for any of our beliefs. For, if God can deceive us concerning the events of creation, He might have done that in regards to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The bottom line is that we then can have no confidence in God's Word, if the long-day view is held. It is far better to believe God at His Word, and take the creation days as 24-hour days. ~ James Stambaugh, M.DIV.

 

[aspen]

I think it is ridiculous to believe that every word, right done to the syllable is crafted specifically and excluvely for the sentence/paragraph/ chapter/book. As if no other word could possible work. "This Hebrew word is used no where else in rthe Bible" is a meaningless statement and border strongly on magic tbinking - Bible uses this mosiac approach to the Bible which has been completely debunked by people who tried method on classic literature and come with all kinds of crazy prophecies. People at dynamic - words are reductionistic - trying to narrow the meaning of words even more, especially if you are trying to exclude people or experience ces is thinking in the wrong direction - it is allowing the fear of ambiguity to limit people and truth.

 

[aspen]

*the bible code uses mosaic thinking

 

[StanJ]

I think it is ridiculous to believe that every word, right done to the syllable is crafted specifically and excluvely for the sentence/paragraph/ chapter/book. As if no other word could possible work. "This Hebrew word is used no where else in rthe Bible" is a meaningless statement and border strongly on magic tbinking - Bible uses this mosiac approach to the Bible which has been completely debunked by people who tried method on classic literature and come with all kinds of crazy prophecies. People at dynamic - words are reductionistic - trying to narrow the meaning of words even more, especially if you are trying to exclude people or experience ces is thinking in the wrong direction - it is allowing the fear of ambiguity to limit people and truth.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to assert here. Do you NOT believe that God's inspiration is perfect and infallible?
FYI, dynamic/functional equivalence IMO is a far better way to communicate with the most people as it is designed to reflect CURRENT vernacular, not a word sense that only existed for example, 400+ years ago.

 

[aspen]

I'm not really sure what you are trying to assert here. Do you NOT believe that God's inspiration is perfect and infallible?
FYI, dynamic/functional equivalence IMO is a far better way to communicate with the most people as it is designed to reflect CURRENT vernacular, not a word sense that only existed for example, 400+ years ago.

Sorry was posting from my phone.

I do believe that the meaning of the Bible is inspired. The words used to convey the meaning are reductionistic, interchangeable, and chosen by the authors. The Bible was not dictated to the authors.

 

[StanJ]

Sorry was posting from my phone.

I do believe that the meaning of the Bible is inspired. The words used to convey the meaning are reductionistic, interchangeable, and chosen by the authors. The Bible was not dictated to the authors.

It did sound a tad incohesive.

Well if you do, then the next two sentences makes NO sense? Saying this conveys that inspiration was not involved as it would not be reductionistic. Interchangeable means God didn't say what He actually meant, and chosen by the authors means that what Paul stated in 2 Tim 3:16 (NIV) is wrong.
Sorry both I totally disagree with your perception.