Plain Old Bill
New Member
Well here we are again. We will agree to disagree.These discussions are an exercise in futility.
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!
Sounds very reasonable (it really does). However, it still boils down to who to believe.Originally posted by Deacon:
The issue is not who holds the Bible in higher esteem but who interprets the biblical data correctly.
One thing you'll learn is that the religion of Israel was astoundingly different from that of her neighbors. And 99% of her scriptures stand in radical contrast to other ANE texts.Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
And yes if you do not want to mishandle it I suggest you learn about ANE writings!
Gee, I sure hope your tongue didn't break completely through your cheek with that one.Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
So if I really want to know what the Bible is saying I should just consult Deacon or Charles Meadows and use them as my ultimate authority of what God's Word says.
Scott J,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Deacon:
Evidences for an old earth are overwhelming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is subjective. I tend to think that what God said is overwhelming evidence.
What is your source of this information?Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
As I have already posted in this thread, we know for a fact, that sometime after the flood, a Pinus logaeva (Bristlecone Pine) seed germinated and grew into a tree and that this seed germinated almost 9,000 years ago. Tree rings don’t lie!
What is your source of this information? </font>[/QUOTE]The science of dendrochronology. This science has many applications, mostly in the study of climatology and long-range forecasting of weather based upon the rainfall in a specific area over a period of thousands of years. It is also used for dating old structures in which wooden beams are used, and it can pinpoint the date for the building of a structure to a specific year, or very close to it. Young earth advocates are not able to refute the absolute accuracy of this method of dating so they have no choice but to admit that the earth is at least 10,000 years old. There are, of course, other means of determining for a fact that the earth is substantially older than 6009 years.Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
As I have already posted in this thread, we know for a fact, that sometime after the flood, a Pinus logaeva (Bristlecone Pine) seed germinated and grew into a tree and that this seed germinated almost 9,000 years ago. Tree rings don’t lie!
This thread doesn’t have to discuss ages over 10,000 years. Many, [perhaps most] young earth advocated do not agree with Ussher’s chronology and extend the estimated date of creation further than what a simple addition of the genealogies would suggest.Why do even Young Earth Creationists frequently allude to a time period of 10,000 years? I am mostly interested in the reasons why it might be 10,000 and not the 6,000 that the Bible indicates.
Interpretation is an art. Some are better at it than others.Originally posted by Artimaeus: “If it requires highly specialized skills to be able to interpret the Biblical data correctly then there is no hope for the vast majority of people to whom the Bible was actually written.”
Suppose a skeleton was discovered that was Adam.Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died
Scott J,Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Scott J wrote,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Deacon:
Evidences for an old earth are overwhelming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is subjective. I tend to think that what God said is overwhelming evidence.
No. You are disputing what God said. God said that He created all animal life for instance in one day as defined by a morning and evening with no evidence whatsoever that He meant anything other than a literal day. He further clarified that these animals would reproduce after their own kind which precludes upward evolution.None of us are disputing what God said, we are simply disputing some inadequate interpretations of what God said,
No it doesn't. It contradicts interpretations of what God revealed that are based on naturalism... an idea that demands that all things in nature must be explained without appealing to a supernatural creator.and we know that they are inadequate interpretations because they directly contradict what God has chosen to reveal to us through the earth and universe that He created.
This is a gross abuse of this scripture by you. If anything, it applies to those "scientists" whose darkened heart presupposes naturalism.Rom. 1:18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19. because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (NASB, 1995, my emphasis)
Well, then I am a liar—and so is God! I most strongly urge you, therefore, to stop reading my posts and to place your Bible up on the shelf with your science fiction novels. I sometimes use the rhetorical first person singular in my posts on this message board, I frequently use the rhetorical first person plural when teaching, preaching, and talking with my friends. Paul used the rhetorical first person singular in several places in his Epistle to the Romans. John never told us not to take his Revelation literally. And Jesus does not tell us that his parable of the prodigal son was not to be taken literally as an historical account.It is the responsibility of the communicator to give indications when they aren't speaking literally or else they are lying by conveying a not-literal message that they know will be taken literally.