Just stop. It could also be that they understand it differently. Whether their interpretation is right or wrong accusing them of calling Jesus a liar is a false witness.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How do you young earthers know
- Thread starter billwald
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Just stop. It could also be that they understand it differently. Whether their interpretation is right or wrong accusing them of calling Jesus a liar is a false witness.
Just stop. It could also be that they understand it differently. Whether their interpretation is right or wrong accusing them of calling Jesus a liar is a false witness.
No thank you. I believe I will continue. If you feel that I am out of order, report it to a moderator. You are not in charge of this board.
No thank you. I believe I will continue. If you feel that I am out of order, report it to a moderator. You are not in charge of this board.
Shame on you
WestminsterMan
New Member
Yes he did! Note the definite article with the singular noun! Can you find any other creation spoken of by Jesus or any other "beginning" used in connection with creation of things (Jn. 1:1-3) or any context where Jesus claims to be the Creator of more than one "creation" or one "beginning" of all things (Jn. 1:1-3)! You don't have a single solitary statement by Christ that can be manipulated into teaching there was any other creation that Christ acted as Creator but ONE!
Whoa there doc... I never said there was another creation. God did it all. I simply disagree that Genesis is a chronologically accurate story.
Furthermore, note that he places Gensis 1:27 "at the beginning" of creation rather than billions of years after creation. Your interpretation of Genesis one does not place Genesis 1:26-27 "at the beginning" but billions of years after the creation of the heavens and earth. His words simply deny the possibility of your interpretation of Genesis one.
Yet, you base that claim on a position not supported by Genesis. Per an earlier post…
Among the CF's, there was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days while others argued for a much longer period. Those who took the older Earth position appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).
Hmmm... so much for a chronologically accurate timeline there doc.
There is no way you can interpret "at the beginning" for Geneis 1:27 while placing BILLIONS OF YEARS between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:27.
You are just whistling in the dark.
Well then doc – I am in good company. See posts #142-#143.
Do you actually believe that mental giants like Augustine were just "blowing smoke"?
WM
Dr. Walter
New Member
No it doesnt
Listen, if Jesus said "I am the Son of God" and some took the interpretation that flatly contradicted this statement, then, three things should be obvious.
1. Both cannot be true
2. Either Jesus is lying or he is telling the truth
3. If he is telling the truth, then whoever chooses to embrace the contrary interpretation, accusing Christ of lying whether they realize it or not, whether they deny it or not. They may be deceived but they are still progating a LIE as soon as they defend or teach it.
When it comes down to what a man says versus what God's Word says, then "Let God be true and all [such] men be LIARS" - that is Paul's assessment.
WestminsterMan
New Member
I hold to a young earth and a literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe that any interpretation other than a literal one is a grave and serious error. But that does not justify your language.
Let me see if I understand your train of thought.
1) YOU hold to a young earth and literal interpretation of Genesis. OK - YOU can hold to whatever view YOU choose.
2) YOU believe that any interpretation other than a literal one [the one that YOU hold to] is a grave and serious error.
Impressive logic. Alrighty then....
WM
Listen, if Jesus said "I am the Son of God" and some took the interpretation that flatly contradicted this statement, then, three things should be obvious.
1. Both cannot be true
2. Either Jesus is lying or he is telling the truth
3. If he is telling the truth, then whoever chooses to embrace the contrary interpretation, accusing Christ of lying whether they realize it or not, whether they deny it or not. They may be deceived but they are still progating a LIE as soon as they defend or teach it.
When it comes down to what a man says versus what God's Word says, then "Let God be true and all [such] men be LIARS" - that is Paul's assessment.
using the same logic I can prove Barney the purple Dinosaur is the anti-Christ
Given: Barney is a CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR
Prove: Barney is satanic
The Romans had no letter 'U', and used 'V' instead for
printing, meaning the Roman representation would for
Barney would be: CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR
CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR
Extracting the Roman numerals, we have:
CV V L DI V
And their decimal equivalents are:
100 5 5 50 500 1 5
Adding those numbers produces: 666.
666 is the number of the Beast.
Proved: BARNEY IS SATAN!
You have talked yourself into a use of logic you need to rethink.
WestminsterMan
New Member
using the same logic i can prove barney the purple dinosaur is the anti-christ
you have talked yourself into a use of logic you need to rethink.
bwaaaahahahahaa!
WestminsterMan
New Member
using the same logic I can prove Barney the purple Dinosaur is the anti-Christ
You have talked yourself into a use of logic you need to rethink.
(Logic is often absent here.)
WM
Let me see if I understand your train of thought.
1) YOU hold to a young earth and literal interpretation of Genesis. OK - YOU can hold to whatever view YOU choose.
2) YOU believe that any interpretation other than a literal one [the one that YOU hold to] is a grave and serious error.
Impressive logic. Alrighty then....
WM
I have no idea what the purpose in that post is.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Yet, you base that claim on a position not supported by Genesis. Per an earlier post…
Among the CF's, there was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days while others argued for a much longer period. Those who took the older Earth position appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).
Hmmm... so much for a chronologically accurate timeline there doc.
You are intelligent enough to know your above argument is pure foolishness. The "beginning" of creation can involve a literal seven day period without any harm done to the language as the whole period is regarded as "the beginning" and rightly so, because in each day something entirely new occurred.
However, you cannot possibly stretch such language to cover a gap of BILLIONS of years AFTER the creation occurred and still say that man originated "AT the beginning" or "FROM the beginning of creation" as that is a lie in every sense of the term.
Absolute proof that this is a foolish argument, just find, one secular evolutionist or just one recognized theistic evolutionists who uses the same languague Christ used for the origin of man in regard to the "beginning of creation"????? There are no such evolutionists that have said that or would dare use those words as they use the very opposite kind of language when talking about the origin of man in regard to the "beginning" of creation.
Well then doc – I am in good company. See posts #142-#143.
Do you actually believe that mental giants like Augustine were just "blowing smoke"?
WM
Since when are secondary sources and uninspired men better company than Moses, Christ, Peter and Paul????? Look at my prevous post where I give their words dealing with the literal character of the Genesis record. I am in much better company.
Dr. Walter
New Member
using the same logic I can prove Barney the purple Dinosaur is the anti-Christ
You have talked yourself into a use of logic you need to rethink.
You have got to be kidding! Your analogy does not even make sense when applied to what we are talking about. Are you inferring that the words of Christ have been misspelt? Or that there is a problem with the underlying Greek text? Or there is something hard to understand in what he said????
Go back to your drafting board until you can come up with something more sensible as a response.
You have got to be kidding! Your analogy does not even make sense when applied to what we are talking about. Are you inferring that the words of Christ have been misspelt? Or that there is a problem with the underlying Greek text? Or there is something hard to understand in what he said????
Go back to your drafting board until you can come up with something more sensible as a response.
I am not implying any of that. What I am saying is your logic is just as flawed. Just because you line some facts up in a row does not mean your conclusion of those facts is correct.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I am not implying any of that. What I am saying is your logic is just as flawed. Just because you line some facts up in a row does not mean your conclusion of those facts is correct.
What you fail to see is the word "IF"! "IF" Christ is telling the truth then all who oppose that truth are lying!
Your illustration of flawed logic does not even apply to the nature of our argument for many reasons that should be obvious.
My logic is not flawed at all and if you think it is, then, do me the favor and demonstrate where the flaw exists. I think the flaw is in your own mind that has failed to grasp the argument I presented.
Neither is my interpretation of Christ's words flawed. That is where the "IF" has its basis. If you think so, demonstrate it.
WestminsterMan
New Member
I have no idea what the purpose in that post is.
Sorry... I got your post cornfused with one by mat wade. They come with such regularity, that it's difficult to keep them seperated. I appologize!
WM
Magnetic Poles
New Member
This is the epitome of a very ill-informed position.The fossil record does not disagree with with young earth.
Dr. Walter
New Member
This is the epitome of a very ill-informed position.
No, it is the epitome of an intelligent response to real evidence not the imaginary kind that evolutionists theorize in their dreams.
Sorry... I got your post cornfused with one by mat wade. They come with such regularity, that it's difficult to keep them seperated. I appologize!
WM
So you are replying to the poster rather than the content? If I had posted the content that mandym had posted your reply would be OK, right? Don't tell me you replied to the wrong post, because you quoted mandym in your response. You simply didn't realize that you were insulting someone that has been sticking up for you.
Shame on you
Shame on what? Not thinking that I am doing anything wrong in posting what I believe? I believe Jesus is telling the truth. I believe that anyone that doesn't believe what he says is basically calling Jesus a liar. Jesus is either telling the truth, ignorant of what he is speaking, or a liar. Choose one.
What you fail to see is the word "IF"! "IF" Christ is telling the truth then all who oppose that truth are lying!
This is flawed logic. You might want to go look up the definition of what a lie is. It has to do with the purposeful intent to deceive hence you logic is out the window.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.