Should we believe in a young earth or our lying eyes?

Northwest quadrant -- the northern hemisphere part of the western hemisphere. Sorry if that didn't make sense to you.

A straightforward reading means that the author meant what he said and said what he meant. There is also the understanding that there have been copyist errors (which have mostly been found, I think, by checking early mss against one another) and that the idioms of the time may well have been involved. This does not change the meaning, however, it simply adds to its depth.

A straightforward meaning also means that looking at the grammatical structure to help determine what is allegorical and what is not can be of great help.

The Torah is not allegorical in any section. It does, however, include some idioms of the time and quite a bit of word play, actually, which comes to light with a little more study of the language.

Studying something in depth does not take away from the straightforward meaning, although it does sometimes contradict the literal meaning of some words which is imposed on the text by the understandings and choices of the translators.

All of this is common sense, folks. Try it, you might like it.

 

So it's literal, unless it's not. The internal contradictions of a literal Genesis is why Christians don't take it as literal.

 

That's nonsense and a purposeful re-interpretation of what I was saying in order to mock the truth, Galatian. Get off it.

 

I don't see that it is. It appears that literalists are not consistent in that doctrine.

 

what do you think causes those rings? years? no! the melting and refrezing of the ice... which happens a lot more then once a year.

 

Uh folks - those thingies in Iceland are layers, not rings.

 

Where does the western hemisphere begin?

Now, where does the northern hemisphere begin?

If each is a half of the world (approximately), then half of a half is......?

usually, a quarter....

A quarter of a circle's circumference is a quadrant. I stretched the meaning a little, assuming the intelligent people here on this forum would pick up the meaning.

I was wrong.

I apologize.

 

Hi Helen - could you specifically address this point:

 

</font>[/QUOTE]But I have reinterpreted nothing! I looked into finding out about some idioms, and even staying with Bible and not going outside of it explains those idioms used.

I used to think the world was several billion years old. I could see the Bible said differently, given a clear and uninterpreted reading. The only thing I knew for sure was that God didn't lie. I had already made the move from evolution to long-ages creation at that point. The result was that I needed to really check the data itself and not anyone's (on either side) interpretation of it. I could see what the Bible clearly said. What about the evidence in creation itself?

And the evidence itself lends support to what the Bible claims -- that this is a young creation.

In the meantime, researching culture and idioms and grammatical structure and the like is not the same as trying to reinterpret the meaning of the Bible to fit whatever the current 'understanding' of the natural world is. There truly is a difference.

A good parallel example can be found in Mormonism. They claim some ancient civilizations here on the American continents. There is not only no evidence for that claim, there is evidence against it! Their theology, in addition, flies in the face of biblical theology.

But they will not admit to either weakness, because they "know" LDS theology is true! Why do they know it is true? Because they were taught it is true -- or because any alternative was handled so poorly by others that Mormonism becomes a default theology.

Nevertheless, it is a lie.

Evolution is the same way, and in the same boat. The data is simply there, just like it is for Mormonism. And it is roundly rejected by those who wish to believe otherwise.

I can understand the position of long-age creationism a lot better than I can understand the position of a true evolutionist. The former position does seem to have evidence for it (although it turns out in some cases to be incomplete evidence and in others to be misinterpreted evidence); the latter position has to fly in the face of contradictory evidence at every turn.

In the meantime, a simple and straightforward reading of the Bible keeps coming up as the truth time after time after time....

No interpretation is necessary, let alone a 'reinterpretation.' Studies into culture and such add to the depth of meaning, but never change the meaning.

 

You've been posting a lot of arguments from authority Helen, now I want to ask: What research have you contributed to a valid scientific journal?

I'm assuming you've presented your ideas in front of a peer-review of qualified scientists since you are pronouncing your authority on the issues of a young earth and the falsity of evolution since you are an self proclaimed 'expert'.

 

Maybe I'm an exception; however, this earth
doesn't look ancient to me... Oh yes, perhaps
10 thousand years old or so but billions of
years seems totally idiotic.

 

Wow, you've certainly change my opinion on the matter with you uncanny insight!

 

Meatros, by trying to focus on me or mock the other Christian the way you just did shows me you are not interested in the topic, only with trying to 'score points' (with whom?) at any cost. See if you can discuss the topic, OK?

If what I present is correct, I need no other qualifications -- neither does anyone else. Please notice I have not asked you for yours.

 

I see a clear bias in your typing. You have absolutely no problem with A_Christian implications that those who believe in OEC are idiotic.

The difference between what I've presented and what you have presented is that most of what you have presented is on your authority. Unless I'm mistaken I've never pronounced that evolution is correct. I've said that I accept it. You on the other hand, have said it is incorrect. That is the difference.

 

So how long do you think it took for the continents to drift from being one to where they are now? We're talking about solid rock spreading out!

 

Paul of Eugene:

You ask how long it took for the continents to
drift to where they are now? That is a good
question---indeed they are still drifting apart.
But even if we know that part of the equation,
that doesn't mean that is ALL there is.

I believe God created the entire universe and
everything in it----both space and matter.

I believe humans make water glasses. How long
does it take to break a water glass-----an
instant? How long does it take to scatter the
pieces? The answer is----for as long as they
exist.

I feel that whatever triggered the Flood also
began the continental drift. It may even have
been exacerbated by asteroid collisions. I do
not assume nor insist that billions of years
are needed by God or even by nature. The fact
is that GOD can do anything HE wants by any
means HE chooses. HE created the solid rock.
It seems to me HE has the ability to break it.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Sure, God could have done anything He wanted to do. I believe that - it kind of comes with being God! But the distance the continents have drifted is evidence, or appearance if you will, of a world that is older than just 10,000 years.

Scientists have been piecing together the evidence all over the world about the processes that have affected the earth over the years. They seem to have found that these processes require millions of years, not just thousands.

Have you ever visited Hawaii? The main island there was formed from the sea floor by a volcano. It's mountains look fresh - jagged craigs, and so forth. Then go to the neighboring island of Oahu. Formed by the same volcano, as the pacific plate slid over the upwelling magma. It's mountains are obviously more rounded, softer in appearance. The island is smaller. More eroded from its creation.

The whole Hawiian island chain, extending across vast areas of ocean and continuing with seamounts underwater, shows a pattern of construction from a single volcanoe and then wearing away by erosion that could not possibly take place in a mere 10,000 years. No way!

And the whole earth is like that all over, so it does not have the appearance of being only 10,000 years old.

 

What about griffins?

Haruo