Embedded Age Challenge

[super animator]

Again -- how do you know?

The fact that he didn't counter that many Christians on the forum.

And do you agree with their interpretations?

I don't not agree with interpretations that are balantly wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Strange then that so few Christians on this board agree with your interpretations of the bible.

And do you agree with their interpretations?

My own view is that the old testament is a mixture of myths, legends and folk history. So, yes, pretty much in line with Church of England interpretations.

I'll go ahead and take your point with a grain of salt, and won't bother pressing you for an answer.

 

[super animator]

I'll go ahead and take your point with a grain of salt.

I find it ironic that many of us take your points with a grain of salt.

 

[Tomatoman]

I'll go ahead and take your point with a grain of salt, and won't bother pressing you for an answer.

The trouble is, AV, that you are under the illusion that your interpretation is the only one that allows you to go to heaven. Once you've got over the fact that your own church's self-imposed "believe us or go to hell" clause isn't true, and has only been imposed to scare you from leaving, you will be able to embrace a much more intelligent, tolerant and loving form of christianity, one that understands metaphor and puts the bible in context, but still believes in an afterlife. You will also be allowed to explore and even believe science without being terrified that the devil is about to whisk you off.

You see, your interpretation is not mainstream christianity. You interpretation is very much an extremist sect of christianity that the church seems to tolerate but actually regards as a backward relative, a black sheep. An embarrassment. Your god is a god designed to keep children from misbehaving. It's time you left the nursery, AV. You'd be a lot happier.

 

[Split Rock]

How would you know I'm 'adding nonsensical stuff to it'?

Nonsensical = In conflict with reality, or what makes sense.

As I showed earlier,* you guys wouldn't recognize basic doctrine, even when I tell you whose doctrine it is.

One sect's "basic doctrine" is another's heresy. That is why i personally do not find "basic doctrine" to be a convincing argument.

So everything must seem like nonsensical stuff to you guys, eh?

Not everything, just stuff that is made up from thin air with no basis in reality. Stuff like, "The flood waters were sent to Neptune to warn off bad angels," or "the core of the planet is made of spiritual matter, so we cannot understand anything about it."

It's just a matter of degrees, isn't it?

Not when it comes to stuff that conflicts with reality, no.

 

[lucaspa]

Since embedded age is maturity without history, the best answer to this is that you have maturity without history.

Maturity with history is Omphalism.

Maturity with fake history is Oomphalism.

Maturity with real history is truth. Immaturity without history is also truth.

The problem, AV, is that the universe has maturity with history. We could easily accept a young earth or universe if it really had maturity without history. But that is not what we see.

What you are trying to do with "embedded age" is have a fake history that is not fake. That is impossible.

Planets, moons and stars all appearing fully mature, but not by the process of accretion or accelerated accretion.

BUT, if those planets had the appearance of accretion -- such as the impact crators on the moon -- then you have Oomphalism.

In reality, He took six days on purpose, so as to give us a template for the workweek.

The Sabbath came first. Exodus happened before Genesis 1 was written. The creation story was written to fit within 6 days as a (unnecessary) justification for the Sabbath.

He could have just spoken the entire universe into existence, fully up and running, in less than a picosecond

According to Genesis 2:4, God did make everything but life in a single day.

 

[Nostromo]

Interesting reply, since I gave you basic doctrine according to the Gap theory.

My point exactly. At what point was I talking about Gap theory? What's the title of this thread?

 

[Cabal]

My point exactly. At what point was I talking about Gap theory? What's the title of this thread?

I think the logic was "See! I'm not the only person who's wrong!"

 

[Tiberius]

Earth went through a period of being inhabited by a race of human-angel hybrids; and some families even consisted of hybrid children having human mothers and angel fathers.

Wars and disputes between super-powerful empires could have been on a cosmic scale, producing massive scarring on the earth's surface, that even the Flood didn't erase.

I'm with the Gap theorists on this one.

Huh? And which day of creation did all this occur on?

How can you agree with a theory that states that the earth is older than the Bible implies and then adhere to a literal interpretation of Gen 1? And that states there was a gap in the creation period, despite there being no biblical evidence whatsoever to support it!

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? And which day of creation did all this occur on?

How can you agree with a theory that states that the earth is older than the Bible implies and then adhere to a literal interpretation of Gen 1? And that states there was a gap in the creation period, despite there being no biblical evidence whatsoever to support it!

Well, I see I'll have to get my Scofield Reference Bible out and type his notes yet again.

Where's JohnR7 when you need him, eh?

I'm sure he probably went over this with you guys a k times; but it's not like we don't know how to repeat ourselves:

Jeremiah 4: 23-26, Isaiah 24:1 and 45:18, clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of a divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting intimations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. See Ezekiel 28:12-15 and Isaiah 14:9-14, which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.

There you go, gentlemen -- basic Gap theory doctrine.

But please feel free to say I'm making this stuff up; I've heard it a k times before.

And that states there was a gap in the creation period, despite there being no biblical evidence whatsoever to support it!

Care to amend this statement?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a post from the past -- just FYI:

The Bible says: "In the Beginning" Science confirms that there was a beginning. Science talks about "Adam" & "Eve" this confirms that there was a common ancestor. I can give you many, many, many examples of where Science confirms that the Bible is true.

People search long and people search hard to try and find something in the Bible that is not accurate and true. For the most part, they have failed to find anything in the Bible that is not true. Science and the Bible work and in hand to confirm each other.

There is nothing that says Genesis is not accurate. What science falsifys is some of the traditions and some of the popular misconceptions or misinterpretations of the Bible. That is why I say, Science helps us to better understand out Bible. If it were not for science we may never have known that some of our traditional interpretations of the Bible are wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

Here's a post from the past -- just FYI:

I must say AVET, you have gone very quickly from an "Embedded Age Creationist" who wanted very much to be a YEC, to a Gap Creationist. I predict you'll be an OEC in no time!

 

[AV1611VET]

I must say AVET, you have gone very quickly from an "Embedded Age Creationist" who wanted very much to be a YEC, to a Gap Creationist. I predict you'll be an OEC in no time!

Haven't been following the thread, have you?

 

[Split Rock]

Haven't been following the thread, have you?

What?? Is there something wrong with Gap Creationism???

 

[Tiberius]

I'm sure he probably went over this with you guys a k times; but it's not like we don't know how to repeat ourselves:

Jeremiah 4: 23-26, Isaiah 24:1 and 45:18, clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of a divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting intimations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. See Ezekiel 28:12-15 and Isaiah 14:9-14, which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.

Let's have a look at these passages shall we?

4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

Sounds like this passage is refering to people and birds and that in the past tense to me. You care to tell me how all this could happen in the gap between God creating the world and creating people and birds and cities and all that when this passage clearly refers to birds and human cities in the past tense? Sounds to me like the things this passage is describing must happen AFTER birds and cities existed.

24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

Again, this is describing something that happens AFTER people were created. Doesn't fit in with gap theory, does it?

45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

And how does this speak of a great catastrophe? Sounds to me like it is just saying God created things.

28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

This is describing the fall of man. Not some great catastrophe that occured before God made man in the gap described by Gap theory.

14:9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
14:10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

This is the only verse which comes close to describing what you have been speaking of.

Of course, I find it interesting that Lucifer is refered to as the "son of the morning". Revelations 22:16 describes Jesus in a very similar way.

Care to amend this statement?

Not really. Your passages don't provide a convincing argument for your position.

The Bible says: "In the Beginning" Science confirms that there was a beginning.

Doesn't mean that science is referring to the same thing as the Bible is.

Science talks about "Adam" & "Eve" this confirms that there was a common ancestor.

Again, Adam and Eve described in science are NOT the same Adam and Eve described in the Bible.

I can give you many, many, many examples of where Science confirms that the Bible is true.

And I'm sure that you will find each and every example falls into one of two categories.

• The passage from the Bible is so vague and generalised that it can be interpreted in a way that fits in with current scientific knowledge. It was never widely interpreted in thatw ay prior to science finding the particular thing out.
• The passages describes scioentific knowledge that was easily knowable by people of the time.

You want to give me even a single example of scientific knowledge that does not fit into either of those categories?

People search long and people search hard to try and find something in the Bible that is not accurate and true. For the most part, they have failed to find anything in the Bible that is not true. Science and the Bible work and in hand to confirm each other.

The Bible says the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Science says otherwise.

The Genesis 1 account of creation conflicts with what science says.

The Bible says that there were giants and unicorns.

The Bible says that all animals and people are descended from those that were on board Noah's Ark.

All these things are impossible according to science. Only by using magic to handwave the implausibilities away can religion claim they happened.

There is nothing that says Genesis is not accurate. What science falsifys is some of the traditions and some of the popular misconceptions or misinterpretations of the Bible. That is why I say, Science helps us to better understand out Bible. If it were not for science we may never have known that some of our traditional interpretations of the Bible are wrong.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, science falsifies the interpretation that water animals came before land animals, even though whales evolved from land animals and thus could not have been around before them.

Although I will agree with you that science does eliminate some false interpretations of the Bible.

The only difference is that I believe that any interpretation of the Bible as being a description of reality is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's have a look at these passages shall we?

Let's not.

My point in showing this was not to propagate the Gap theory -- (I don't believe in it, myself) -- but to simply show that I didn't make it up.

QV please: 71

 

[mzungu]

Let's not.

My point in showing this was not to propagate the Gap theory -- (I don't believe in it, myself) -- but to simply show that I didn't make it up.

QV please: 71

AV you are beginning to sound like a scientist now

 

[AV1611VET]

AV you are beginning to sound like a scientist now

Oh, man! That stung!

 

[mzungu]

Oh, man! That stung!

Whew, for a moment I though you turned sides there

 

[Tiberius]

Let's not.

My point in showing this was not to propagate the Gap theory -- (I don't believe in it, myself) -- but to simply show that I didn't make it up.

QV please: 71

What you said was:

Earth went through a period of being inhabited by a race of human-angel hybrids; and some families even consisted of hybrid children having human mothers and angel fathers.

Wars and disputes between super-powerful empires could have been on a cosmic scale, producing massive scarring on the earth's surface, that even the Flood didn't erase.

I'm with the Gap theorists on this one.

On which day of creation week did this occur?

And could you actually answer it this time instead of trying to derail the thread?