is creating with age deceptive?

[archaeologist]

Is this some sort of game?

not at all, it proves a point.

Science got it right and the bible literalist warning the science was of the devil got it wrong. Cosmas was deceived.

your opinion, i disagree to a point. so you believe science is greater than God? we have no pride or arrognace, we stand with the Bible, which is humbleness as we forsake the ways of the world and look to God instead of secular science.

I can see you believe evolution is the enemy of God so you deny all the scientific evidence that supports it. You could do the same thing with spherical earth or heliocentrism. If you think the bible supports your interpretation, that you interpretation is what God says, then any evidence is wrong, human imagination, or a lie of the devil

assuming is a mistake you do not want to commit. your assumptions are wrong. i know that evolution is an enemy of God, your desire to not look foolish to the world blinds you...

How can we tell you are right in your condemnation of evolution but Cosmas was wrong?

because i have scripture, ancient records, archaeological records, logic, history, among other things on my side while you have a few out of context phrases and a bunch of non-believing people on yours.

You should have checked my actual posts rather than just working from the Reply to Thread

i told you not to assume, i knew which one it was, i was just confirming, your attitude takes away your credibility.

You both reject science as a deception of the devil if it contradicts you interpretation of scripture

no, that is wrong. that is your escape route hiding in the 'your interpretation' strategy. it allows you to ignore the truth when it hits you.

i reject the science because it disagrees with all of the scriptures not my take on it.

We only found out that interpretation was wrong when secular scientific principles told us it was the earth that was moving

but you didn't prove the Bible wrong because your interpretation of those words makes you assume that the sun is moving around the earth just like i said, the most unliteralpeople make the most literal interpretations and ignore wisdom and understanding.

What has this to do with the earth being a sphere and the information coming from pagan science? You quote flat maps as evidence the earth is a round ball shape? Flat maps that come from pagan sources to claim Noah knew the earth was a sphere

it must be tiring looking for excuses to ignore the truth, are you sure they were pagan sources? we have no idea who made them.

But it is irrelevant

no not irrelevant, it shows that people knew of the earth's shape long before anyone gives credit. also the greeks were not sailors but probably got their information from the minoans, the phoenicians, and other sailors who traveled the globe.

in other words more than the greeks had knowledge of a globe. science getting it right with the globe does not validate that science always gets it right, it does not change its falible form to infallible etc., as i said before , a good con man puts some truth into the con so people will be lead astray or it wouldn't work. just enough truth is put into secular science for the same purpose.

If Satan is deceiving people, how do we know you and your anti science doctrines are not the Satanic deception? It was the anti science that was led astray in the past.

the Bible lays out the criteria, you should look them up.

[Assertions and accusations rather than argument./QUOTE]

staements of fact and observation. i wouldn't accuse unless i knew it was true.

4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

do you understand what this verse is saying? it has nothing to do with the creation act or proving that the days in genesis are longer than 24 hours. read that verse in context with the rest of the chapter, and you will see not one allusion to creation or length of actual days

Then Moses tells us that what seem in God's eyes as a day may be much longer, a thousand years. From the time of the early church people realised this could apply to Genesis and that the days in Genesis may have non literal meanings. Each day could actually refer to a thousand years

a very literal translationfor someone who claims to be non-literal. again that is not what the verse is talking about and it is reading into scripture.

i know what it means, but i am not going to say it now.

So your interpretation of Psalm 90 that time means nothing to God is wrong

not at all. you are twisting words and refusing to use any understanding. you are trying to hard to prove your theinking whenit has nothing to stand on.

this happens all the times with those who accept alternatives to the Biblical record, they will use any means possible to prove their point except the truth.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

You have all of 5 posts. You sure drop the hammer quickly on your brothers and sisters, if that is what we are.

We can reason and bring the evidence with anyone. ANN-EEEE-WUUUUUUUN.

Let me tell you about the literal, inerrant word. It feeds me. Gives me joy. Fills me. Its a light for my path. You think you can overcome that with sarcasm? Happily that isn't happening.

Blessings.

Sarcasm?

 

[busterdog]

Sarcasm?

INdeed.

 

[JAL]

Archaeologist, I’m an OEC. I originally came to the forum as a YEC but found the old-age evidence presented on this forum to be pretty convincing. This was very disturbing to me because I, like you, felt my conscience inclined in favor of a literal reading of Genesis.

So I decided to re-read Genesis looking for a literal interpretation consistent with an old earth. It has always been my belief that the Bible is quite often a literal book, but is rarely a plain book. What’s the difference? Take for example John 3:5, “Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, He cannot see the kingdom of God.” This chapter of John constitutes one of the most salvation-dedicated chapters in the entire Bible. This is one place where I can almost guarantee you that Jesus was speaking literally. However, His verbiage here, though literal, is not entirely PLAIN, in my opinion. Yes, He is speaking of literal, physical water in my view, but not water baptism, since, in the same chapter He tells Nicodemus that salvation is by faith alone. (I realize everyone may disagree with my analysis but I’m just trying to clarify the distinction between “literal” and “plain”).

Indeed, I consider my reading of Genesis to be the MOST literal reading possible. Let me begin. The sun, in a YEC-reading, isn’t in place until the 4th day. Thus the YECist should admit, with me, that the six Mosaic days do NOT refer to our sun’s 24-hour days. Rather, Genesis opens up with Moses defining a day as a period of darkness followed by a period of light (prior to any mention of our sun or a 24 hour period).And technically, a scientist would agree, since a day and a night (depending on the planet) would not necessarily be 24 hours. Question is, what was the source of daylight in Genesis? Well, as it was not the sun, Paul tells us in 2Cor 4:4-6 it was the Light of Christ’s face. I can demonstrate that this Light is, throughout the Bible, depicted as a physical Light. Just one example will suffice. In that same context (see 2Cor 3), Paul spoke of the Light in Moses’ face, and how Moses used a veil to keep it from physically blinding Israel. Tell me, how can a physical veil restrain a non-physical Light? That doesn’t make sense. Therefore the Light in Moses’ face was physical.

Now, back to Genesis. Since the Light was Christ’s face shining into the galaxy, each darkness was His face abstaining therefrom. And since it is His prerogative where and when to shine, He had complete control over how long each of the six daylights lasted, and how long each of the six darknesses/nights lasted. Each of the nights could have been a nanosecond, for instance. Likewise each of the days, in my view, may have been billions of years. I call it the six Galactic Days.

Also, during the Galactic Nights, He may have been shining His light (as a tiny candle) as to illuminate all the earth. That is to say, even when the galaxy as a whole was in a Galactic Night, the earth may have been illuminated, because the Six Galactic Days and Night are not geocentric.

WHY did God do this? To set a precedent. He figured at some point He might ask His people to work six days and rest on the seventh, and hence set an example for them to follow.

Next question, how can we reconcile Moses’ chronology/timeline with the fossil record? I don’t think we can. They don’t seem to correspond, despite Hugh Ross’ pathetic attempts to “make it all fit.” Probably the only solution is to argue that Moses was writing topically, not chronologically. For example, if the first day “God said, let there be Light,” how was Light created the 2nd day? The same way! But Moses only mentioned it on the first day, even though it happened seven times! Thus where God says, for example, “Let there be sea creatures,” we cannot assume this was only stated on one of the six days - there could have been sea creatures THROUGHOUT the earth’s 4.6 billion year history.

My reading of Genesis (Six Galactic Days) makes it conducive to both evolution and creation, although I opt for the latter.

One of the fringe benefits of my old-age view is that it allows me to postulate other humanoids living in Adam’s day (Adam was simply the first humanoid given a conscience). As a result, there were plenty of potential husbands and wives. Whereas the YEC view has Adam’s family practicing incest.

Notice that in each case, “there was evening, and there was morning, the [next] day”, EXCEPT on the seventh day. Why not? Why no evening in this case? Because we are STILL in the Seventh Galactic Day. It is an eternal daylight (Revelation tells us there will no night in heaven), God is still resting (from the act of creation), and Hebrews says we shall one day enter into His eternal rest. Otherwise, if the seven days were 24 hour periods, and since God is still resting from creation, this would have God resting (from creation) the last 6000 years, seven days a week, which does NOT set a good example for Israel. Whereas in my view, God rests ONLY on the seventh day, which indeed WAS the right example to set for Israel.

As a sidenote, the second point I’d like to make is that using Adam as a precedent for the “appearance of age” argument is pretty weak because God had an extenuating REASON for creating Adam as an adult. His creatures tend to be self-sufficient, i.e., their bodies are self-sustaining. To fit Adam into this type of self-sustaining model, he needed to be created as an adult since an infant cannot survive rearing himself.

 

[archaeologist]

i will address your post tonight wheni get home, i need to get ready for work now.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

JAL - an excellent post, thanks a lot for that.

Archie - our breath is bated .....

 

[archaeologist]

i have put together an answer for JAL and will post it in several parts. maybe three so bear with me:

part one:
“I’m an OEC. I originally came to the forum as a YEC but found the old-age evidence presented on this forum to be pretty convincing. This was very disturbing to me because I, like you, felt my conscience inclined in favor of a literal reading of Genesis”

First off, it isn’t my conscience that is guiding me, it is the Holy Spirit. Secondly, they have not presented any convincing evidence but have done a ‘take my word for it’ argument without any support from credible scholars, scriptures, history or archaeology. Third, they are not presenting any evidence that can’t be found in the secular wing of the evolutionary theory and none f it can be proven as true. Saying science doesn’t prove anything is just an excuse for not having any and looking to avoid thinking and studying too deeply what they proclaim.

“So I decided to re-read Genesis looking for a literal interpretation consistent with an old earth.”

So you went with a pre-supposition as you read the Bible. There went any objectivity.

“It has always been my belief that the Bible is quite often a literal book, but is rarely a plain book”

here is what matthew 13:11-14 has to say {and I can find more scriptures}:
“ he replied, ‘The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing they do not see; though hearing they do not hear or understand”

so the problem doesn’t lie with the Bible but with those who have no understanding. The Bible has always been a plain book, there is just more at work than you know of.

“Let me begin. The sun, in a YEC-reading, isn’t in place until the 4th day. Thus the YECist should admit, with me, that the six Mosaic days do NOT refer to our sun’s 24-hour days”

why? what logical reasoning led you to assume that the sun was responsible for light? Obviously it isn’t as it was created separately from it. And here is what Keil and Delitzsch have to say on the topic:

“The first thing created by the divine Word was​

“light,” the elementary light, or light-material, in distinction from the​

“lights,” or light-bearers, bodies of light, as the sun, moon, and stars,​

created on the fourth day, are called. It is now a generally accepted truth of​

natural science, that the light does not spring from the sun and stars, but​

that the sun itself is a dark body, and the light proceeds from an​

atmosphere which surrounds it. Light was the first thing called forth, and​

separated from the dark chaos by the creative mandate, “Let there be,” —​

the first radiation of the life breathed into it by the Spirit of God, inasmuch​

as it is the fundamental condition of all organic life in the world, and​

without light and the warmth which flows from it no plant or animal could​

thrive.

And;

At the creative word of God​

the bodies of light came into existence in the firmament, as lamps. On hy;h;,​

the singular of the predicate before the plural of the subject, in v. 14;​

Genesis 5:23; 9:29, etc., vid., Gesenius, Heb. Gr. §147. laæy;, bodies of​

light, light-bearers, then lamps. These bodies of light received a threefold​

appointment: “

so before the sun and moon could give off light, light had to be created first. Wouldn’t do any good to create the sun and the moon first if there was no light for them to produce.

“Rather, Genesis opens up with Moses defining a day as a period of darkness followed by a period of light (prior to any mention of our sun or a 24 hour period).And technically, a scientist would agree, since a day and a night (depending on the planet) would not necessarily be 24 hours”

scientists have no say in this, their opinion means nothing as this is outside of their authority and scope. Every person who works with the Hebrew language knows that the words , ‘evening and morning’ means 24 hour day. Again I will use Keil & Delitzsch as an example I can get more sources and references if you like:

““Thus evening was and morning was one day.” dj;a, (one), like eiJ>v and​

unus, is used at the commencement of a numerical series for the ordinal​

17​

primus (cf. Genesis 2:11; 4:19; 8:5,15). Like the numbers of the days​

 

[archaeologist]

Part Two:

which follow, it is without the article, to show that the different days arose​

from the constant recurrence of evening and morning. It is not till the sixth​

and last day that the article is employed (v. 31), to indicate the termination​

of the work of creation upon that day. It is to be observed, that the days of​

creation are bounded by the coming of evening and morning”

“Paul spoke of the Light in Moses’ face, and how Moses used a veil to keep it from physically blinding Israel. Tell me, how can a physical veil restrain a non-physical Light? That doesn’t make sense. Therefore the Light in Moses’ face was physical.”

have you ever experienced this light? If not I wouldn’t talk about it if I were you. It is not what you think.

“Now, back to Genesis. Since the Light was Christ’s face shining into the galaxy, each darkness was His face abstaining therefrom. And since it is His prerogative where and when to shine, He had complete control over how long each of the six daylights lasted, and how long each of the six darknesses/nights lasted. Each of the nights could have been a nanosecond, for instance. Likewise each of the days, in my view, may have been billions of years. I call it the six Galactic Days.”

Please provide some credible support for this thinking. This is nowhere to be found in scripture. Listen to what you are saying, you are looking for excuses to believe differently than what God says. Yes God could have created in any fashion He wanted but He chose one way, the way you left to join OEC. All scripture points to this fact. So far you haven’t provided one scripture to justify your change in thinking.

“Also, during the Galactic Nights, He may have been shining His light (as a tiny candle) as to illuminate all the earth. That is to say, even when the galaxy as a whole was in a Galactic Night, the earth may have been illuminated, because the Six Galactic Days and Night are not geocentric”

Again, you have no credible sources or scripture to think this way nor even to present it so it is not germane to the issue nor is it a verifiable option.

“WHY did God do this? To set a precedent. He figured at some point He might ask His people to work six days and rest on the seventh, and hence set an example for them to follow”

God did not ‘figure’ as you write it. He knew what He wanted to do and say. This is an YEC argument so i wonder if you have left at all. Also, God is sinless thus he could not create in thousands/millions of years or He would be a hypocrite.

“Next question, how can we reconcile Moses’ chronology/timeline with the fossil record? I don’t think we can”

First off, we do not have to do that, God’s word trumps all. It is the fossil record, which has to be reconciled with God’s word. Secondly, the ‘fossil record’ is a secular construct and thus has no validity when it comes to spiritual matters. Third, the fossil record can do no more than say that a certain animal existed at some point in time and there is no evidence that evolution was responsible. It is all read into the topic.

“Probably the only solution is to argue that Moses was writing topically, not chronologically. For example, if the first day “God said, let there be Light,” how was Light created the 2nd day? The same way! But Moses only mentioned it on the first day, even though it happened seven times!”

You are just in denial here as there is no scripture, which even hints at such a possibility nor is there any credible scholar, work or whatever that would suggest such a thing. Since Moses was writing from God’s leading, I doubt he was writing topically but writing factually. God does not lie nor misrepresent.

“. My reading of Genesis (Six Galactic Days) makes it conducive to both evolution and creation, although I opt for the latter”

sorry but I will opt out of your reading as it is not in line with scripture.

“One of the fringe benefits of my old-age view is that it allows me to postulate other humanoids living in Adam’s day (Adam was simply the first humanoid given a conscience). As a result, there were plenty of potential husbands and wives. Whereas the YEC view has Adam’s family practicing incest.”

Again, a non-scriptural viewpoint, which allows you to add in what is not there. Also, you forget that incest was not declared sin by God, till long after that time. It is not a modern idea that you follow

 

[archaeologist]

Part Three:

but God’s and God’s word is very clear when He made it sin.

“Notice that in each case, “there was evening, and there was morning, the [next] day”, EXCEPT on the seventh day. Why not? Why no evening in this case? Because we are STILL in the Seventh Galactic Day. It is an eternal daylight (Revelation tells us there will no night in heaven)”

Revelations is not germane to the issue as we are not in heaven at this moment and we still experience evening and morning. And you have no solid scriptural evidence to support such thinking., again, keil & Delitzsch:

“But as​

the six creation-days, according to the words of the text, were earthly days​

of ordinary duration, we must understand the seventh in the same way; and​

that all the more, because in every passage, in which it is mentioned as the​

foundation of the theocratic Sabbath, it is regarded as an ordinary day​

(Exodus 20:11; 31:17). We must conclude, therefore, that on the seventh​

day, on which God rested from His work, the world also, with all its​

inhabitants, attained to the sacred rest of God; that the kata>pausiv and​

sabbatismo>v of God were made a rest and sabbatic festival for His​

creatures, especially for man;”

Do you really need everything spelled out for you in black and white? Does God have to say ‘evening and morning’ every time for it to mean 24 hour day?

“As a sidenote, the second point I’d like to make is that using Adam as a precedent for the “appearance of age” argument is pretty weak because God had an extenuating REASON for creating Adam as an adult. His creatures tend to be self-sufficient, i.e., their bodies are self-sustaining. To fit Adam into this type of self-sustaining model, he needed to be created as an adult since an infant cannot survive rearing himself”

Couldn’t God raise adam from a child? There was a reason for maturity/appearance of age in God’s work and it wasn’t deception.

 

[archaeologist]

p.s. note that God makes incest sin in leviticus 18:9. if any one has a verse that states it as such prior to that moment, then please post it in context.

 

[Assyrian]

So when did God make murder a sin, before or after Cain?

 

[Assyrian]

not at all, it proves a point.

What, that you can list scripture references that don't support your argument? We knew that already.

your opinion, i disagree to a point. so you believe science is greater than God? we have no pride or arrognace, we stand with the Bible, which is humbleness as we forsake the ways of the world and look to God instead of secular science.

No I don't think science is greater than God. How many times do we have to tell you that? God created the natural world, science is simply finding out about the world he made.

Anyway, how do you disagree with my statement? You admit 'science got it right'. Do you disagree Cosmas was a bible literalist? Do you disagree he warned that round earth science was of the devil? What point do you disagree to? You are right about one thing. Humility is needed. You may be as convinced you are right in your interpretation as Cosmas was. You may be as wrong as he was too. But if you are convinced God has taught your everything you need to know and that your understanding of scripture is faultless, then there is no place for humility in your life.

assuming is a mistake you do not want to commit. your assumptions are wrong. i know that evolution is an enemy of God, your desire to not look foolish to the world blinds you...

So far all we have are your claim science is the enemy of God, and attacking the motives anyone who does not agree.

because i have scripture, ancient records, archaeological records, logic, history, among other things on my side while you have a few out of context phrases and a bunch of non-believing people on yours.

So you claim. You throw in some Chariots of the Gods type archaeology to support you scripture interpretation. Cosmas had some weird arguments and 'logic' he though was very convincing too. If the world is a ball why doesn't the water flow off? But it still boils down to your claim that evolution is a deception of the devil and Cosmas claim round earth is of the devil. Why should we believe you not him? Why should we believed you when science-is-of-the-devil literalists have got it so wrong in the past and you seem to be trying to lead us down the same wrong path?

i told you not to assume, i knew which one it was, i was just confirming, your attitude takes away your credibility.

So why ask which Cosmas it was, when I told you it was Cosmas Indicopleustes, when the wikipedia page you mention only has one Cosmas Indicopleustes, and you knew which one it was

no, that is wrong. that is your escape route hiding in the 'your interpretation' strategy. it allows you to ignore the truth when it hits you.
i reject the science because it disagrees with all of the scriptures not my take on it.

Apart from your really weird claim evolution 'disagrees with all of the scriptures', all you have is your interpretation of some scriptures which is exactly what Cosmas had too. Though he actually did a better job of presenting his case from a literalist interpretation. You have so far shown us nothing other than you ability to read things into verses that aren't there. I suppose if you can do that with the verses we have discussed, like Heb 11, you can do it with the rest of the bible and think evolution 'disagrees with all of the scriptures'. But don't expect people to agree with your interpretation if you can't even begin to back it up.

but you didn't prove the Bible wrong because your interpretation of those words makes you assume that the sun is moving around the earth just like i said, the most unliteralpeople make the most literal interpretations and ignore wisdom and understanding.

There wasn't anybody in the 1500 years of church history who came up with an alternative interpretation to the passages that talked about the sun moving around the earth, not until after Copernicus pointed out that it didn't. But you are quite right it doesn't prove the the bible wrong, it just showed the interpretation was wrong. Just as evolution doesn't show the bible is wrong either, just that the YEC interpretation is wrong.

it must be tiring looking for excuses to ignore the truth, are you sure they were pagan sources? we have no idea who made them.

You have read Hapgood's book. Where do the maps come from? Do they show the earth was a ball? But it is tedious having to point out irrelevant answers so often.

no not irrelevant, it shows that people knew of the earth's shape long before anyone gives credit. also the greeks were not sailors but probably got their information from the minoans, the phoenicians, and other sailors who traveled the globe.
in other words more than the greeks had knowledge of a globe. science getting it right with the globe does not validate that science always gets it right, it does not change its falible form to infallible etc., as i said before , a good con man puts some truth into the con so people will be lead astray or it wouldn't work. just enough truth is put into secular science for the same purpose.

You have not provided any evidence the ancients knew the earth was a ball before Eratosthenes worked it out from the angle of sunlight down wells. Besides Cosmas was campaigning because the science was coming into the church from pagan Greek sources not though biblical tradition.

A good conman puts some truth into the con, but a really good conman will convince people to believe the same old line that has been shown wrong time after time. Cosmas was wrong to say science was of the devil, Luther was wrong when he called Copernicus a fool, and you expect us to believe you when you try to sell us the same line?

If Satan is deceiving people, how do we know you and your anti science doctrines are not the Satanic deception? It was the anti science that was led astray in the past.

the Bible lays out the criteria, you should look them up.

So you can't tell us the answer.

staements of fact and observation. i wouldn't accuse unless i knew it was true.

You will have to come up with more than claims of telepathic insight into my motives.

4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

do you understand what this verse is saying? it has nothing to do with the creation act or proving that the days in genesis are longer than 24 hours. read that verse in context with the rest of the chapter, and you will see not one allusion to creation or length of actual days

It is amazing that I quotes verse 1-4, but you only give the last verse. You cut out the bits I highlighted where the Psalm talks about the creation and man being turned back into dust, then you claim there is not onw allusion to creation. Wow I mean wow.

a very literal translationfor someone who claims to be non-literal. again that is not what the verse is talking about and it is reading into scripture.
i know what it means, but i am not going to say it now.

Again you cannot give an answer of your own, but I am glad you think I was giving the literal meaning of the passage.

not at all. you are twisting words and refusing to use any understanding. you are trying to hard to prove your theinking whenit has nothing to stand on.
this happens all the times with those who accept alternatives to the Biblical record, they will use any means possible to prove their point except the truth.

So far I have discussed what the verse says, you just made a vague reference to time meaning nothing to God which you contradicted in the next post.

 

[JAL]

So when did God make murder a sin, before or after Cain?

Short and sweet. Gotta love it. That post rocks.

 

[archaeologist]

What, that you can list scripture references that don't support your argument? We knew that already.

a thinly disguised attack. that is your opinion as you have yet to post anything significant. though you did post 4 verses which didn't prove your claim, so i am wondering if you are accusing me of what you are doing out of frustration of your own inability to produce sripture to back your position?

No I don't think science is greater than God. How many times do we have to tell you that? God created the natural world, science is simply finding out about the world he made.

point is you are using seular science wich will make it impossible for you to find the answers you seek.

But if you are convinced God has taught your everything you need to know and that your understanding of scripture is faultless, then there is no place for humility in your life.

that is a giant leap to a conclusion.

So far all we have are your claim science is the enemy of God, and attacking the motives anyone who does not agree

it is tiring tokeep reading your misrepresentations of what i say. never said all science is an enemy of God so stop being selective and manipulative.

So you claim. You throw in some Chariots of the Gods type archaeology to support you scripture interpretation. Cosmas had some weird arguments and 'logic' he though was very convincing too.

againwith the misrepresentation. i know you have been here a longtime and the mods are going to let you get away with things the rules said not to do soi will stop answering you until you start being honest.

Do you disagree Cosmas

as for cosmos, where again you misrepresented what i posted, many people come up with wierd ideas, like evolution, and try to make a claim for it. doesn't mean they are right. my posts do not follow his vein but are simply pointing out that following secular science is not following God; also, 100% acceptance of secular science is just leading you down a garden path and i said you need to use discernment.

this inability to separate from the world is what is screwing you up.

ll you have is your interpretation of some scriptures which is exactly what Cosmas had too

i have far more than that, you just wish what you said was true.

There wasn't anybody in the 1500 years of church history who came up with an alternative interpretation to the passages that talked about the sun moving around the earth, not until after Copernicus pointed out that it didn't

how do you know? please prove this statement.

You have read Hapgood's book. Where do the maps come from? Do they show the earth was a ball? But it is tedious having to point out irrelevant answers so often

so every flat map according to you, makes the world flat? you are reaching and ignoring data which makes you uncredible.

So you can't tell us the answer.

no, you lack the ability to understand and you are looking for any little tidbit to attack. it gets old after awhile having to correct your distracting, manipulative retorts.

and you expect us to believe you when you try to sell us the same line?

i expect you to believe God when He says to follow Him and not the world.

It is amazing that I quotes verse 1-4, but you only give the last verse. You cut out the bits I highlighted where the Psalm talks about the creation and man being turned back into dust, then you claim there is not onw allusion to creation. Wow I mean wow

not one of those verses proves your contention, turning back into dust does not mean evolution was used. you failed to provide evidence to back up your contention that the days of genesis were 1000 + years long..

but I am glad you think I was giving the literal meaning of the passage

no, you missed the point which is why i do not expalin much to you.

all i cansee from your post is a lot of mis-representations, dishonesty and thinly disguised personal attacks.

if this is all you have to offer plus secular science, then you have nothing at all

 

[archaeologist]

So when did God make murder a sin, before or after Cain?

when God said not to eatof the fruit of the tree of knowledge...

 

[JAL]

Archaeologist,

As for most of what you said, I’m not going to dignify it with a response, because most of it presumes your exegesis more authoritative than mine. It’s just a bias. The extent to which you try to shove your bias down the throats of others is apparent from the following example. I used Moses’ experience with the Light as hard biblical evidence for my position. You responded:

“Have you ever experienced this light? If not I wouldn’t talk about it if I were you. It is not what you think.”

Apparently, then, I am not allowed to adduce hard biblical evidence for my position (unless it supports your own biased views). Instead, I am supposed to rely on my experience? Again, you said:

“Have you ever experienced this light? If not I wouldn’t talk about it if I were you.”

So when the scientist relies on his empirical experience, you dismiss him stating, “Don’t rely on experience. Rely on Scripture.” And then when I adduce hard Scriptural evidence for my position you say, “You should have looked to experience, not to Scripture.” Make up your mind, please. Scripture? Or Experience? What do you want?

My answer: Not so much Scripture, not so much experience, but Conscience. That is to say, conscience has the final say on how much I weigh Scripture and experience. For example, suppose I SEEM to see two people standing in front of my car. Could be a hallucination, or I could be dreaming. Notice that Scripture doesn’t tell me whether the two people are real. I suppose I could say, “I don’t rely on experience, only on Scripture. And since I have no scriptural evidence for these persons’ existence, I’ll just run right over them.” But no. My CONSCIENCE tells me, in this case, “Uh, better be cautious here. Your experience seems to be on target in this case.” And that’s what science does – it examines experience. Many of us cannot, in GOOD CONSCIENCE, dismiss what our empirical experience (i.e., science) tells us. For example, the fossil record’s lack of a human-dinosaur intermixture suggests two separate eras, first for dinosaurs, and then for humans. I myself cannot, in good conscience, dismiss this fact as “the appearance of age.” (I understand if your conscience is different).

Well, now I am stuck, because my conscience seems to be telling me two things. (1) The earth is old. (2) Genesis is a literal book.

This imposes upon me an obligation to look for reconciliation of the two. Why so? Because I cannot in good conscience remain completely content with a 24-hour interpretation of Genesis that contradicts an old earth. You accused me of reading Genesis with a bias. Yes. I am not ashamed of the fact that empirical experience biases my interpretation of the text. Anything less would be irrational and contrary to my conscience.

Take for example Mat 24:34: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these [end time] things be fulfilled.” If you were alive in Christ’s generation, how would you tend to interpret this statement, honestly? But instead you are alive today, you have a different empirical experience than they did, and I would imagine this fact influences your exegesis of the text.

Fact is, your “reply” doesn’t provide any hard evidence or solid reasoning against my reading of Genesis. Nor have I proved your reading wrong, but then, that wasn’t my goal. I was only trying to show that science and Scripture can be reconciled, and so far you haven’t been able to discredit my showing.

You accused me of having no scholarly support for my views. Why do I need it? I am just proposing a POSSIBLE interpretation of Scripture, and the burden of proof falls upon you to discredit it. Of COURSE I won’t have much scholarship behind my reading since classical scholarship was not faced with harmonizing modern science with the Bible. For the record, anyway, Merril Unger concluded that “Let there be light” at Gen 1:3 refers to Christ’s own Light shining throughout creation precisely as it illuminates the heavenly city according to Revelation (Merril F. Unger, “Rethinking the Genesis Account of Creation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 115:457 (1958), p. 29). This journal is a Dallas Theological Seminary publication, which is a pretty conservative school.


Also, for the record, I have no quarrel with those who hold to a non-literal view of Genesis, with one exception. In my opinion, those who completely dismiss Adam stand on exegetically weaker ground than those who do not.

 

[archaeologist]

As for most of what you said, I’m not going to dignify it with a response, because most of it presumes your exegesis more authoritative than mine. It’s just a bias. The extent to which you try to shove your bias down the throats of others is apparent from the following example.

this was to be expected and typical. when shown to be wrong, yu run and hide. how can it be a bias when i can turn to many scholars and show how the thinking developed?

I used Moses’ experience with the Light as hard biblical evidence for my position. You responded:

“Have you ever experienced this light? If not I wouldn’t talk about it if I were you. It is not what you think

Right and i questioned you on your experience with this light. nothing wrong with that. if you can't stand to be questioned well then...

here is your exact quote:

Question is, what was the source of daylight in Genesis? Well, as it was not the sun, Paul tells us in 2Cor 4:4-6 it was the Light of Christ’s face. I can demonstrate that this Light is, throughout the Bible, depicted as a physical Light. Just one example will suffice. In that same context (see 2Cor 3), Paul spoke of the Light in Moses’ face, and how Moses used a veil to keep it from physically blinding Israel. Tell me, how can a physical veil restrain a non-physical Light? That doesn’t make sense. Therefore the Light in Moses’ face was physical.

i had good reason to question you for the scripture you used, 2 Cor. 4:4-6 has nothing to do with what you were refering to. here is the passage:

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ

please show me where this points to Christ being the light created on day one in genesis 1. also show me how you can state that 2 cor. 3 is the same light. here is the verse i believe you were using (you didn't mention which one, so how convenient), vs. 7-8:

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious

please explain how you can refer to two different passages and without proper exegesis connect them as the same light that was created in Gen.

So when the scientist relies on his empirical experience

i asked you a simple question and now you take it as an attack on the scientific process? i asked specifically if you had experienced this light, which falls directly in line with the meaning of empirical; from the oxford dictionary:

based on experiments or experiences rather than ideas or theories

now where did i disallow scientific work with a simple question? you should have given me some idea of your experiences or experiments. this whole paragraph is one false accusation based upon the fact you have none of the above and wish to avoid being exposed.

And then when I adduce hard Scriptural evidence for my position you say

what hard scriptural evidence? you quote two separate passages talking about different lights and you failed to connect them to the created light in genesis. you failed to provide any credible scholar to back up your points, which is the academic process.

thus this is added to what i said previously about making a false charge.

but Conscience. That is to say, conscience has the final say on how much I weigh Scripture and experience

\

please back this process up with scripture. where does God say to use conscience, what context did he say it in and so on.

My CONSCIENCE tells me, in this case

so your conscience is able to think cognitively? from the oxford:

1. the part of your mind that tells you whether your actions are right or wrong.
2. a guilty feeling...
3. the fact of behaving in a way that you feel right even though this may cause problems

i do not see cognitive thought listed here.

And that’s what science does – it examines experience. Many of us cannot, in GOOD CONSCIENCE, dismiss what our empirical experience (i.e., science) tells us

you haven't provided any empirical evidence yet plus because something is attributed to, let's say. evolution does it mean that it is correct or that said theory exists. conscience isn't scientifically provable or classified as being able to be scientifically analyzed or experimented on. sounds like yu are going off into religion as it is convenient for your 'belief'.

Well, now I am stuck, because my conscience seems to be telling me two things. (1) The earth is old. (2) Genesis is a literal book

then that should tell you that conscience is subject to the fall of man, can be deceived, manipulated and so on. that is why you rely on the Holy Spirit and Jesus not your conscience.

as for your analogy, it fails as scriptures would be guiding you or your 'conscience' from verses such as, 'do unto others...' 'thou shalt not kill...' and so on so you swerve to obey scriptures.

it seems scriptures would play a bigger role in missing those figures than you give credit, after swerving you then an determine if they were a hallucination or not.

This imposes upon me an obligation to look for reconciliation of the two. Why so? Because I cannot in good conscience remain completely content with a 24-hour interpretation of Genesis that contradicts an old earth. You accused me of reading Genesis with a bias.

so you disobey God and follow your conscience even though God said--follow me.

You accused me of reading Genesis with a bias. Yes. I am not ashamed of the fact that empirical experience biases my interpretation of the text. Anything less would be irrational and contrary to my conscience.

then you deny one of the premier principles of science--objectivity--thus your conclusions are not scientific but prejudiced presuppositions lading you to a conclusion you want to believe and not what is really there.

your findings are corrupted by this admission and contains nothing scientific nor can they be taken as conclusive, factual or honest.

Take for example Mat 24:34: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these [end time] things be fulfilled.” If you were alive in Christ’s generation, how would you tend to interpret this statement, honestly? But instead you are alive today, you have a different empirical experience than they did, and I would imagine this fact influences your exegesis of the text.

you are trying to make a point by taking a verse out of context and then extrapolate that back to a passage that has little to do with with the subject Christ was speaking on. get real, do some real exegesis for a change and then come and talk to me.

Fact is, your “reply” doesn’t provide any hard evidence or solid reasoning against my reading of Genesis. Nor have I proved your reading wrong, but then, that wasn’t my goal. I was only trying to show that science and Scripture can be reconciled, and so far you haven’t been able to discredit my showing

excuse me? i think you are wrong on that but i won't get in a 'yes idid' 'no you didn't' argument. you are just avoiding the reality of what scripture is saying.

you didn't do so in the latter part of that paragraph either. in fact you provided no evidence but a few out of context scriptures, which didn't relate to each other and i see no links or quotes that showed any science proving anything.

i actually have.

You accused me of having no scholarly support for my views. Why do I need it? I am just proposing a POSSIBLE interpretation of Scripture, and the burden of proof falls upon you to discredit it.

you need it if you want to be seen as credible and as someone who has the truth. no, the burden of proof falls upon you when you disagree with scripture. you are discredited the moment you proposed something that has no scriptural foundation, is outside of translational rules, exegetical procedures and so on.

anyone can propose a theory or an interpretation, that isn't news or even worth refuting. you are not even up to credibility status yet but you do take a place among all the van donikans and hancocks of the world.

For the record, anyway, Merril Unger concluded that “Let there be light” at Gen 1:3 refers to Christ’s own Light shining throughout creation precisely as it illuminates the heavenly city according to Revelation (Merril F. Unger, “Rethinking the Genesis Account of Creation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 115:457 (1958), p. 29). This journal is a Dallas Theological Seminary publication, which is a pretty conservative school.

let's have a contextual quote before you start jumping up and down for joy. i have never read any such thing and would find it hard to believe that such an idea had widespread acceptance.

the title says a lot as well as to the slant and direction he is going in.

 

[JAL]

Some of your statements are blatantly self-contradictory, others totally incoherent. You write:

“What logical reasoning led you to assume that the sun was responsible for light?”

I don’t know why I thought such a thing, maybe that’s why they call it SUNlight? Call me crazy. In support of your statement, you went on to quote Keil and Delitzsch as saying:

“The sun itself is a dark body, and the light proceeds from an
atmosphere which surrounds it.”

And you take this as evidence that the sun does NOT produce sunlight, apparently. (Of course, contrary to your crazy notions, these scholars go on to speak of the rays of the sun, so you obviously don’t understand them). Paul said that Christ’s Light, on the road to Damascus, shined brighter than the noonday sun. Apparently Paul believed in the sun shining, but you don’t. Why am I not surprised that you don’t believe the Scripture? Moreover your citing of these scholars actually supports my position, not yours. Why so? Because they admit that the sun was not in place for the first three days and thus the light at Gen 1:3 was not solar according to them. This challenges your assumption of a 24-hour sun-day. You see, I don’t have to establish that it was the Light of Christ’s face. God could have used ANY light for the Six Galactic Days.

Bottom line – in a chronological reading, the sun was not in place for the first three days. Therefore there is no reason to presume a 24-hour daylight. At Gen 1:5 Moses defines a day as a span of daylight. Period. End of story. Yes, I do not deny that the most common usage is 24-hour days (well, duh, since that’s what we are used to) but that does not prove that this is the essence of the term. Exegetically, Genesis 1 tell us it is a period of light subsequent to a period of darkness. End of story. Stop reading into the text your own bias. If you can show me in Genesis 1 where it says 24 hours, guess what, you win the debate!

I can go one step further. Not only was there no sun during the first daylight, there was not even an earth! These same scholars, Keil and Delitzsch admit that the raw material used by God to shape the earth was water. (And a NUMBER of classical scholars can be cited on this point). So here we have no sun in place, and no earth formed - and yet you want me to presume it’s a 24-hour day? Why should I believe that? (Oh, I forgot, because Archaeologist SAYS so. He’s the authority around here).


You accused me of running and hiding? I accuse you of something worse. You pretend to stay and fight, but cognitively you run and hide, because I charge you with contradictions, and you pretend to answer the charges, but all you do is dance around them while hurling ad hominem as a smokescreen. I’m really impressed.

You question my belief in the authority of the conscience. Because in your mind, you imagine that Scripture is the only authority. That’s logically self-contradictory. It makes no sense. In order for me to claim that Scripture is inspired (as opposed to some other book such as the Koran which ALSO claims to be inspired), I must have some (epistemologically authoritative) warrant/basis for this claim. (I cannot take it on blind faith because if blind faith were a good thing, it would be good to convert to any religion on blind faith). Whatever basis it is (whether Reason, Conscience, God’s Voice, or whatever), the moment I agree that Scripture is inspired I have ALSO (tacitly) agreed that the basis was authoritative. For if the basis lacks authority, then the claim (that Scripture is inspired) ALSO lacks authority.

So what was MY basis for believing that the Scripture is inspired? The testimiony of the Holy Spirit (God’s Voice), as far as I can tell, but I can’t really PROVE that I hear Him. What I have rather, is impressions upon my conscience that SEEM to be the voice of God. As a result, all I REALLY have to go by is my conscience, it is the only final authority, I would argue. You see, conversion is possible for an agnostic only if he recognizes some kind of authority warranting him in drawing religious conclusions (in this case the conclusion that Scripture is inspired and Jesus is God). And once he acknowledges that authority (arguably his Conscience), he contradicts himself if later tries to say, “The Bible is my only authority.” That makes no sense, and I don’t care how many centuries Protestants have been contending that point of view, it just doesn’t work, logically.


As a matter of fact, the Protestant Reformation INSISTED that the Inner Witness (the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the conscience – Rom 9:1) is the basis for conversion. It’s testimony is to be deemed reliable and authoritative. Objectively, it’s the divine voice, subjectively it is experienced as the voice of conscience. That’s a Protestant consensus, in fact there is also much Catholic scholarship in support of it as well.

You say, “But JAL, your conscience could be mistaken or corrupted.” Makes no difference, it’s all I have to go on, because I am not God. (I define conscience as my feelings of certainty as to what is right and wrong). What – you’d prefer a world where people always refused to heed their conscience? How long would such a world last before self-destructing? If we shouldn’t rely on conscience, what say you of Abraham? He heard a voice commanding him to kill his son, and his conscience was totally persuaded it was God speaking. Hebrews say he acted righteously to obey the voice – what say you? Moses and Joshua heard a voice commanding them to slaughter 7 nations to get hold of Canaan (even though their Bible said, ‘Thou shall not kill.’) Hebrews says these men acted righteously – what say you?

Fortunately, my conscience never has, and hopefully never will, be persuaded of killing someone. But had I been a soldier in world war II, perhaps my conscience would have told me to….

 

[archaeologist]

Some of your statements are blatantly self-contradictory, others totally incoherent. You write

personal attack ignored.

I don’t know why I thought such a thing, maybe that’s why they call it SUNlight

ignorance ignored.

Why am I not surprised that you don’t believe the Scripture

false accusation ignored.

actually, i was going to respond to some of what you said but your lack of understanding and failure to see what God has done makes this a worthless enterprise.

when you want to discuss sanely without all the crap, then come and talk to me but until then you have a lot of growing up to do.

your post is just typical of one who only knows alternatives.

peter said,

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,”[a] and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

2 peter 2:20-22
{bold mine}

 

[Assyrian]

a thinly disguised attack. that is your opinion as you have yet to post anything significant. though you did post 4 verses which didn't prove your claim, so i am wondering if you are accusing me of what you are doing out of frustration of your own inability to produce sripture to back your position?

Simply pointing out what you demonstrate again and again, you make these wild claims about evolution and science which you can't back them up. Instead you throw out list of of bible references that have nothing to do with your claim.

point is you are using seular science wich will make it impossible for you to find the answers you seek.

If I want to know the structure of DNA how do I find out?

that is a giant leap to a conclusion.

You mean your interpretation of scripture could be wrong?

it is tiring tokeep reading your misrepresentations of what i say. never said all science is an enemy of God so stop being selective and manipulative.

Just what you call 'secular' science.

againwith the misrepresentation. i know you have been here a longtime and the mods are going to let you get away with things the rules said not to do soi will stop answering you until you start being honest.

If you want to talk about misrepresentations you could get around to answering the accusations and misrepresentations of yours I asked you about
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36347840&postcount=283
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36363294&postcount=286

as for cosmos, where again you misrepresented what i posted, many people come up with wierd ideas,

Oh yes.

like evolution, and try to make a claim for it. doesn't mean they are right. my posts do not follow his vein but are simply pointing out that following secular science is not following God; also, 100% acceptance of secular science is just leading you down a garden path and i said you need to use discernment.

And Cosmas warned that pagan science of a round earth was not following God "ye who follow these men and yet wish to be Christians". How do we know that Cosmas' weird round earth science is of the devil is wrong and your evolution is of the devil is right?

this inability to separate from the world is what is screwing you up.

Cosmas: No man can serve two masters, as has well been said by the lord, but if one will serve God, let him serve him, or if Mammon, then Mammon. And again he says through Paul: Ye cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.

i have far more than that, you just wish what you said was true.

show us some day.

There wasn't anybody in the 1500 years of church history who came up with an alternative interpretation to the passages that talked about the sun moving around the earth, not until after Copernicus pointed out that it didn't

how do you know? please prove this statement.

The church would not have been taken by surprise by Copernicus if there had been people with alternative interpretations. However if you know of any please share.

so every flat map according to you, makes the world flat? you are reaching and ignoring data which makes you uncredible.

You are the one trying to show Noah knew the world was round. Flat maps don't cut it.

no, you lack the ability to understand and you are looking for any little tidbit to attack. it gets old after awhile having to correct your distracting, manipulative retorts.

That is still not giving an answer. If you are going to argue against evolution by talking of Satanic deception, how do we know you and your anti science doctrines are not the Satanic deception?

i expect you to believe God when He says to follow Him and not the world.

That what Cosmas said, but he was the one who rejected the truth about the world God created. There is no contradiction between following God and learning about the world God created, at least none that you have shown from scripture.

not one of those verses proves your contention, turning back into dust does not mean evolution was used. you failed to provide evidence to back up your contention that the days of genesis were 1000 + years long..

Did I say turning back into dust means evolution was used? Where did you get that from? I said it shows the context of Moses' discussion. That and the reference to the mountains being born and God bringing forth the earth. Moses gives us God's perspective on time. I realise you want to stick to your own interpretation and your own point of view, but this Psalm is a very important insight into how God sees things and what a day means in his perspective. So important Peter quotes it in the Nt as 'Do not forget this one thing...'

no, you missed the point which is why i do not expalin much to you.

all i cansee from your post is a lot of mis-representations, dishonesty and thinly disguised personal attacks.

if this is all you have to offer plus secular science, then you have nothing at all

You don't actually seem to explain very much to anybody. You certainly can't seem to explain how the bible say what you claim it says.