Old Earth

[aspen]

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.

God provided us with inspired meaning though the vehicle of imperfect man, who uses imperfect language. That is one of His methods of communicating with us. Jesus spoke in parables, which is another way to communicate perfect meaning without speaking literally. It is kinda a God thing, Stan.

It is also why the Bible speaks to humanity across time - it is the meaning that applies, not the words used to convey the meaning.

 

[StanJ]

God provided us with inspired meaning though the vehicle of imperfect man, who uses imperfect language. That is one of His methods of communicating with us. Jesus spoke in parables, which is another way to communicate perfect meaning without speaking literally. It is kinda a God thing, Stan.

It is also why the Bible speaks to humanity across time - it is the meaning that applies, not the words used to convey the meaning.

Inspiration rules out imperfection...that is the whole point, otherwise Paul's mention of it is inconsequential.
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand (Matthew 13:13). Jesus spoke in parables - earthly stories with a heavenly meaning. He did this, so that his disciples would comprehend his teachings and that unbelievers would be without comprehension.

The Bible speaks to humanity (all languages) when it is properly translated, otherwise it pollutes the target meaning.

 

[aspen]

Inspiration rules out imperfection...that is the whole point, otherwise Paul's mention of it is inconsequential.
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand (Matthew 13:13). Jesus spoke in parables - earthly stories with a heavenly meaning. He did this, so that his disciples would comprehend his teachings and that unbelievers would be without comprehension.

The Bible speaks to humanity (all languages) when it is properly translated, otherwise it pollutes the target meaning.

Sounds like you are making my point. Inspired meaning does smooth out the limits of language. So why get so caught up in the placement and narrow definitions of words? It certainly does not help understanding of the parables. Btw Jesus was not trying to exclude people - He was trying to communicate to those who have ears and those we are His sheep. The message is open to anyone willing to pay attention.

Seriously, getting too caught up in the molehills of exegesis interferes with the broader meaning of scripture. Unless the broader message of love is communicated, quibbling over language differences is a profound waste of time.

 

[JimParker]

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.

My! You seem rather touchy today. (Bless your [SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]eart!)

You [SIZE=12pt]j[/SIZE]ust violated the following
Christianity Board Community-Wide Rules:
- No insults are allowed.
- This further includes making false statements or accusations about a member.
- Do not attack another member's character in any way. Address the post content, not the member's character, family, denominational affiliation or any other subject that may be perceived as a personal attack by the Christianity Board team and is not germane to the topic or post at hand.
- Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christians.
- This further includes making false statements or accusations about a member.

<<pretend to be very scientifically literate>>

I am apparently more scientifically literate t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]an you, judging your post in w[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]ic[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE] you appear to assert t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]at t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e CERN machine is somehow connected to witchcraft.

I did challenge Stan to produce scientific reasons for rejecting t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e conclusions scientifically drawn conclusions of experts in t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e field w[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]om [SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e believes [SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e can refute by citing a literary device (a genealogy).

<<in adhering to science falsely so called, to the various totally made up gap theories,...'just so' stories...>>

(1) T[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]e words; [/SIZE]"science falsely so called", were written long before modern science arose and, t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]erefore, [SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]ave absolutely not[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]ing to do wit[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE] science today.
(2) I made no mention of or reference to any "gap theory".
(3) I made no use of or reference to any "'just so' stories".

(4) I made no mention of or reference to "outright frauds (piltdown man)." (But I do conclude t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]at t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e folks w[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]o produced t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e CERN -Witchcraft video you posted are frauds.) O course, you may, [SIZE=12pt]wit[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]h Stan, assert [/SIZE]that every single astronomer/astrophysicist is wrong.


You have accused me of being "Bible illiterate

". That is a lie. (And, remember, people go to hell for lying just like for stealing. :) )

<< They commit a most heinous crime by adding and removing the things stated in the Bible >>

That is also a lie. I added nothing and removed nothing from t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e Bible.

<< their own works based private interpretations. >>

Do you mean, as opposed to your private, inerrant, interpretations?

Works and interpretations have absolutely nothing to do with your apparent [SIZE=12pt]belief [/SIZE]of t[SIZE=12pt]h[/SIZE]e CERN machine being somehow connected.

You posted a bit of sensational rubbish and its tota[SIZE=12pt]l[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]l[/SIZE]ac[SIZE=12pt]k[/SIZE] o[SIZE=12pt]f[/SIZE] substance was pointed out to you. It wasn't personal. Do try to get over it. :)

 

[BlackManINC]

Sounds like you are making my point. Inspired meaning does smooth out the limits of language. So why get so caught up in the placement and narrow definitions of words? It certainly does not help understanding of the parables. Btw Jesus was not trying to exclude people - He was trying to communicate to those who have ears and those we are His sheep. The message is open to anyone willing to pay attention.

Seriously, getting too caught up in the molehills of exegesis interferes with the broader meaning of scripture. Unless the broader message of love is communicated, quibbling over language differences is a profound waste of time.

Which is his intent, to waste everyone's time with his word games. He's one of those egotistical little creatures who is more in love with the English language than he is with the Lord. Its like a lawyer, a Pharisee trying to pick apart every single statement Jesus ever made with a fine toothpick to find fault in it. Why anyone would bother with such clowns, such den of vipers is beyond my understanding.

 

[StanJ]

Sounds like you are making my point. Inspired meaning does smooth out the limits of language. So why get so caught up in the placement and narrow definitions of words? It certainly does not help understanding of the parables. Btw Jesus was not trying to exclude people - He was trying to communicate to those who have ears and those we are His sheep. The message is open to anyone willing to pay attention.

Seriously, getting too caught up in the molehills of exegesis interferes with the broader meaning of scripture. Unless the broader message of love is communicated, quibbling over language differences is a profound waste of time.

Not quite...parabolic language exists for a reason, and not all the Bible is in parable. WHEN it is literal, it is meant to be literal, NOT parabolic. Why equivocate about the two if you know the diff? Did Jesus tell a parable about divorce, or hell, or who He was? I am well aware of what Jesus was doing in the NT Aspen. I'm not the one making erroneous assertions. The message if open, and is specific. Again I point out John 20:31 (NIV) to you.

That you think this way about exegesis seems to indicate a certain amount of lack of understanding of God's word which seems to make you uncomfortable when discussing it. This forum is not about communicating the message of salvation, the streets are. People come here to discuss the Bible and those like myself want it done properly. If you find it a waste of time then DON'T comment.

 

[aspen]

That you think this way about exegesis seems to indicate a certain amount of lack of understanding of God's word which seems to make you uncomfortable when discussing it. This forum is not about communicating the message of salvation, the streets are. People come here to discuss the Bible and those like myself want it done properly. If you find it a waste of time then DON'T comment.

We all have things to learn about God and His scriptures. I understand your point about wanting to study scripture - I just think is should be considered a hobby - not as a qualifier for who is a REAL Christian. I also think that is can be carried too far if it distracts from loving God and neighbor.

 

[StanJ]

We all have things to learn about God and His scriptures. I understand your point about wanting to study scripture - I just think is should be considered a hobby - not as a qualifier for who is a REAL Christian. I also think that is can be carried too far if it distracts from loving God and neighbor.

A hobby?
Real Christians are NOT qualified by what they know of the Bible, but what they act on what they know. That doesn't negate our instructions to learn and know about God and His word. That's how we grow in faith. Rom 10:17 (NIV)
If more Christians actually knew the context and import of Genesis, we wouldn't have so many trying to contradict what is actually conveys. Christianity and God's Word is NOT a hobby, it is a lifestyle. Hobbyists never last.

 

[aspen]

A hobby?
Real Christians are NOT qualified by what they know of the Bible, but what they act on what they know. That doesn't negate our instructions to learn and know about God and His word. That's how we grow in faith. Rom 10:17 (NIV)
If more Christians actually knew the context and import of Genesis, we wouldn't have so many trying to contradict what is actually conveys. Christianity and God's Word is NOT a hobby, it is a lifestyle. Hobbyists never last.

Hobbies are important - don't discount them!

God is not going to give as a theology test at the entrance of Heaven. He will however, judge the capacity of or heart to love Him and His body.

 

[StanJ]

Hobbies are important - don't discount them!

God is not going to give as a theology test at the entrance of Heaven. He will however, judge the capacity of or heart to love Him and His body.

I don't, I have a couple, I just don't see my FAITH walk as a hobby.

I agree, seeing as there is no entrance to heaven, and we as believers, are not going there.

 

[JimParker]

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.

Nobody asked you to post anything about the Hebrew language in which you pretend to have expertise. The genealogy of Gen 1 uses the words "evening and morning, the nth day." That usage is in no way intended to communicate that it only took 36 hours from "big bang" ("Let there be light") to the existence of the earth in a state able to support life.

Here's what the astrophysicists have determined:

Feel free to explain their errors using scientific data.

What I asked you is to explain the mathematical and/or scientific error which practically every astronomer/astrophysicist has made in their calculations giving the universe an age of approximately 13.5 billion years.

Please explain why they are wrong using science and math. (Clue: the genealogy of Genesis 1 is neither science nor math.)

So far, you have not even attempted to offer a scientific/mathematical explanation.

And, please do not address me as "Jimmy." We're not that close.

 

[StanJ]

Nobody asked you to post anything about the Hebrew language in which you pretend to have expertise. The genealogy of Gen 1 uses the words "evening and morning, the nth day." That usage is in no way intended to communicate that it only took 36 hours from "big bang" ("Let there be light") to the existence of the earth in a state able to support life.

Here's what the astrophysicists have determined:

Feel free to explain their errors using scientific data.

What I asked you is to explain the mathematical and/or scientific error which practically every astronomer/astrophysicist has made in their calculations giving the universe an age of approximately 13.5 billion years.

Please explain why they are wrong using science and math. (Clue: the genealogy of Genesis 1 is neither science nor math.)

So far, you have not even attempted to offer a scientific/mathematical explanation.

And, please do not address me as "Jimmy." We're not that close.

I don't need to be asked to contribute my reasoning. The context of the wording means ACTUAL days we know them, despite your lack of acceptance. The difference between you and I is that I study the Word of God, not science which contradicts the Word of God.

WHAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED BASED ON FLAWED KNOWLEDGE AND DATA SETS.

As I've said many times, I'm not scientist so I can't identify where their flaws are. If it contradicts God's word, then it IS flawed no matter what you try to use that even you don't really and fully understand.

As far as addressing is concerned, my username is StanJ, NOT Stanly, so govern yourself likewise. Funny how people of your ilk like to post in a facetious and snarky manner but don't like getting it in return?

 

[JimParker]

I don't need to be asked to contribute my reasoning. The context of the wording means ACTUAL days we know them, despite your lack of acceptance. The difference between you and I is that I study the Word of God, not science which contradicts the Word of God.

WHAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED BASED ON FLAWED KNOWLEDGE AND DATA SETS.

As I've said many times, I'm not scientist so I can't identify where their flaws are. If it contradicts God's word, then it IS flawed no matter what you try to use that even you don't really and fully understand.

As far as addressing is concerned, my username is StanJ, NOT Stanly, so govern yourself likewise. Funny how people of your ilk like to post in a facetious and snarky manner but don't like getting it in return?

<< science which contradicts the Word of God.>>

That would be science which contradicts your flawed personal understanding of the word of God.

<< WHAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED BASED ON FLAWED KNOWLEDGE AND DATA SETS. >>

What knowledge is flawed and how is it flawed? ("Because the Bible says so" is NOT an answer.)

To what DATA SETS do you refer?

What is the Scientific or mathematical flaw in them?

Well, it's obvious that you can't answer my questions because you lack even the slightest clue as to how how they determine the age of the universe.

All you know is that a genealogy in the ancient religious poetry of a people who had no concept of the physical aspects of the universe uses the metaphor "morning and evening, the nth day". And you imagine that that is "proof" that real scientists don't know what they're talking about but you, an amateur theologian, do.

Enjoy your fantasy.

 

[StanJ]

That would be science which contradicts your flawed personal understanding of the word of God.

What knowledge is flawed and how is it flawed? ("Because the Bible says so" is NOT an answer.)

To what DATA SETS do you refer?

What is the Scientific or mathematical flaw in them?

Well, it's obvious that you can't answer my questions because you lack even the slightest clue as to how how they determine the age of the universe.

All you know is that a genealogy in the ancient religious poetry of a people who had no concept of the physical aspects of the universe uses the metaphor "morning and evening, the nth day". And you imagine that that is "proof" that real scientists don't know what they're talking about but you, an amateur theologian, do.

Enjoy your fantasy.

Not that you have ever been able to actually demonstrate. Denial aside.

Well how they determine age for one thing, but you know all this so I'm not going to go round in circles.

The ones that are flawed.

Ask a scientist.

Another of your typical supercilious comments doesn't really mean much to this thread at this point.

No, they use an actual noun, but clearly you know nothing of basic Hebrew or English grammar.

If the Christian faith is fantasy then I'm quite comfortable with it. It's the deluded and those that accept man's testimony against God that will answer for their lack of allegiance.

 

[aspen]

I always cringe when I hear testimonies that regurgitate Pascal's wager - I would rather believe a delusion than risk Hell like all those people out there who are not allegent. Striking a deal with the Devil to save youself from propaganda circulated by the same Devil is not worth any sort of devotion.

I am a Christian because my loving God is teaching me to love Him and my neighbor, as I was created to love. No need to turn off my brain to knowledge not covered by the authors of a book. True faith is freedom, not censorship. We are a people who should be known for our love not our long lists of dont's.

 

[JimParker]

Not that you have ever been able to actually demonstrate. Denial aside.

Well how they determine age for one thing, but you know all this so I'm not going to go round in circles.

The ones that are flawed.

Ask a scientist.

Another of your typical supercilious comments doesn't really mean much to this thread at this point.

No, they use an actual noun, but clearly you know nothing of basic Hebrew or English grammar.

If the Christian faith is fantasy then I'm quite comfortable with it. It's the deluded and those that accept man's testimony against God that will answer for their lack of allegiance.

<< Well how they determine age for one thing, but you know all this so I'm not going to go round in circles. >>

That's a very transparent excuse you have attempted to use in an attempt to hide the obvious fact that you have absolutely no idea how the age of the universe has been determined by experts in the field.

Why is it that you took the Ananias and Sapphira rout to attempt to hide that fact?

<<If the Christian faith is fantasy...>>

Don't make up crap and pretend I said it. That's just another kind of lie. I have never asserted that the Christian faith is a fantasy.

Your unlearned notion about the Bible teaching that the entire universe was completed in its current state in 144 hours is the fantasy.

Since you have demonstrated that you believe you must indulge in lies and evasions to "support" your belief, you have also demonstrated that you are not to be trusted in anything you post.

Everyone is ignorant in many more fields than those in which the have studied. So, it is no shame to say, "I don't know" rather than to attempt to misdirect, evade and lie.

 

[StanJ]

<< Well how they determine age for one thing, but you know all this so I'm not going to go round in circles. >>

That's a very transparent excuse you have attempted to use in an attempt to hide the obvious fact that you have absolutely no idea how the age of the universe has been determined by experts in the field.

Why is it that you took the Ananias and Sapphira rout to attempt to hide that fact?

<<If the Christian faith is fantasy...>>

Don't make up crap and pretend I said it. That's just another kind of lie. I have never asserted that the Christian faith is a fantasy.

Your unlearned notion about the Bible teaching that the entire universe was completed in its current state in 144 hours is the fantasy.

Since you have demonstrated that you believe you must indulge in lies and evasions to "support" your belief, you have also demonstrated that you are not to be trusted in anything you post.

Everyone is ignorant in many more fields than those in which the have studied. So, it is no shame to say, "I don't know" rather than to attempt to misdirect, evade and lie.

It is indeed transparent, but only in the sense that I can't be bothered playing your game. The fact that you ignore how all this was taught in high school even when I went over 40 years ago just shows how ignorant you are despite your claims that everyone who knows the Bible is. I'm not selling anything, but you are definitely trying hard to. Just be thankful the Holy Spirit doesn't treat people like them the same way anymore or you would be choking on your words.

The only crap on this thread is what you post. The fantasy of the so-called science that disagrees with God's truth. That is indeed crap.

 

[StanJ]

I always cringe when I hear testimonies that regurgitate Pascal's wager - I would rather believe a delusion than risk Hell like all those people out there who are not allegent. Striking a deal with the Devil to save youself from propaganda circulated by the same Devil is not worth any sort of devotion.

I am a Christian because my loving God is teaching me to love Him and my neighbor, as I was created to love. No need to turn off my brain to knowledge not covered by the authors of a book. True faith is freedom, not censorship. We are a people who should be known for our love not our long lists of dont's.

Nothing wrong with Pascal's Wager if it conveys the reality of a living breathing God. I'm not sure how you are seeing it here though?

I'm also not sure what you mean by don'ts when you keep telling some what they shouldn't do?

 

[JimParker]

It is indeed transparent, but only in the sense that I can't be bothered playing your game. The fact that you ignore how all this was taught in high school even when I went over 40 years ago just shows how ignorant you are despite your claims that everyone who knows the Bible is. I'm not selling anything, but you are definitely trying hard to. Just be thankful the Holy Spirit doesn't treat people like them the same way anymore or you would be choking on your words.

The only crap on this thread is what you post. The fantasy of the so-called science that disagrees with God's truth. That is indeed crap.

<< I can't be bothered playing your game. >>

HAH!

Of course not! That would require you to provide facts and verifiable data and you have none of that.

All you have is your uneducated, personal, opinion.

You won't "play" because you have nothing of substance to offer.

<<The fantasy of the so-called science...>>

Another joke! How would you possible know what is and is not good science? It is clearly obvious that you know nothing about the method of calculating the age of the universe and are not qualified to comment on what is and is not valid.

<< I'm not selling anything >>

You most certainly are! You're peddling your story of a six, twenty-four-hour creation of the universe in its current state.

And, rather than even considering the possibility that the Genesis 1 might possibly have not have been written as a scientific treatise, and after having been informed that the creation hymn/litany is a standard literary device of the ancient middle east which is not intended to be taken as a literal time line, in your stubborn commitment to your ignorance, you cling to your childish notion of what you imagine the Bible teaches.

 

[aspen]

If the Christian faith is fantasy then I'm quite comfortable with it. It's the deluded and those that accept man's testimony against God that will answer for their lack of allegiance.

Pascal's Wager:

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

You must wager (it is not optional).

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.


Your statement supports it -

Believing in Christianity, even if it is wrong loses you nothing. Refusing Christianity risks Hell for eternity if it is right. Therefore, out of self interest, it is safer to believe Christianity no matter what.

This is a poor man's gospel. It does not take the nature of God or His character into consideration. It reduces Christianity to a logical transaction. It is fire insurance, plain and simple; nothing transformative about it.