Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not thunderfoot.
I see that you are new to interpreting passages so I will lend a hand here.I had thought that common logic would dictate that this matter was answered but some are stubborn.
One more time: Here is the verse in question, quote - ""That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment." Job 38:13-14.
Where does this verse say the world is flat? Where is the word flat even used?
But let's take Mallon's point of view for granted and hypothetically agree with him for the sake of revealing just how ludicrous it is.
1. Who did the author of Job quote in that verse?
Answer: God Himself. In fact, according to Job 38 God had been speaking every word from verse 2 and continues throughout the chapter!
2. What does this imply? Mallon's position is that, therefore, God lied to Job and claimed the world was flat...full knowing otherwise.
I have already demonstrated by both illustration and quotation of Jewish sources that ancient Israeli seals were not always flat. Why would one insist then that the surface of such as clay was therefore flat?
This seal certainly isn't flat. But then neither is this object of (guess what?)...clay!
But Mallon misses the point of what the Holy Spirit was bringing to us in the first place: God is the One who forms the features of the earth (i.e. seals the clay) and not the accidental forces of nature.
Finally, this statement by 19th century Bible scholars on the verse:
Quote - "turned--(Hebrew, "turns itself") alludes to the rolling cylinder seal, such as is found in Babylon, which leaves its impressions on the clay, as it is turned about; so the morning light rolling on over the earth."
Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown Commentary on the Bible.
That the Lord inspired the author of Job to use an analogy by symbolism is very plain to see. The eternal truth of the matter is that no man nor the blind forces of nature can do to the earths surface what only the Lord can do. Nature is directed by its Creator, it doesn't act blindly.
Further comment on this issue merely becomes redundant.
P.S. not one of the nine classic commentaries (i.e. Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, John Wesley) I looked up this reference suggested that this verse teaches a flat earth.
To avoid going in circles with you I'll come at this with a different perspective. Can you explain how that "soft" tissue survived for 4,400 years? If conditions allowed it to last that long, why not longer?
The vault above the earth was a dome, but that makes no reference to the shape of the earth. It makes a reference to an ancient cosmology.
Do you stand behind this statement, or don't you? If not, why would you point a questioner to this link if you are not sold on what it says? Or did you even think about it beforehand?
We all believe in the trustworthiness of scripture. We also all believe that scripture is untrustworthy if you misuse it. I assure you, I spend the vast majority of my time defending scripture; however, when talking to hardcore YEC's who are telling me that I am undermining scripture, I have little choice but to point to the inconsistencies and difficulties of their particular view. And, unfortunately, atheists are every bit as capable of seeing those inconsistencies and difficulties as we TE's are, so we end up hitting on the same points. But they are things that have to be dealt with.
I repeat: in the link you provided, AiG made claims that show a profound misunderstanding of what every single TE I have known believe in. Do you defend their statements? Why am I wrong and why are they right?
I'm sorry if you thought I was implying you were being dishonest. That was not my intent. I make no judgments about your personal convictions, I'm making a point about my expectations for Christians in general vs. my expectations of the world.
OK, since I've asked you to address specifics above, I will straightforwardly answer this. The statement is wrong, and it was wrong of any publication to quote it knowing that it was wrong.
Granted, there is too much attacking here, but both sides are equally guilty of personal attacks, and who knows who started it. There are no innocents. TE's need to be less condescending, and YEC's need to be less judgmental.
I dislike AiG because I have found it does not deal with a lot of issues honestly, and it overtly marginalizes a large group of believing Christians because of a side issue. I have a great deal of love and respect for a lot of YEC's; as long as we can work together in love, I have no complaint with them.
I wouldn't even call them "scientific models" because YECism isn't anything like science. YECism presupposes its conclusions and cherry-picks data to support those conclusions. YEC organizations like AiG even admit as much on their websites. It's also why they only allow like-minded YECs to publish in their journals -- their conclusions about the age of the earth and evolution cannot be questioned. That's not science.
Do you know what the word “million” means? Whether it is a max or not isn’t relevant, as it is included in the range, which is well more than the 6,000 years allowed by a literal reading.
Oh, yeah – I forgot that all these Christians have a deep seated bias against Genesis (or as Caly says, a deep "seeded" bias). That must also go for the Hindus, Buddhists and others who don’t care one way or the other about forcing a literal reading on things, but are simply going where the data leads. Science is made up of people from many different paths, including the Christian path, who agree to go where the evidence leads.
Physical tests are more reliable than eyewitnesses anyway. That’s why a DNA test holds more weight in court than a witness. Come on, you know this. You are really arguing that if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, that it doesn't fall? We both know that physical evidence is more reliable than either eyewitness or hearsay.
The RATE creationists are well known to distort and mislead. Referring to them doesn’t help your case, but actually hurts it. Many people know of D. Humphrey’s bogus “lab”.
Well, being that mine are consistent with the scientific consensus, you can always use a normal science book. However, asking for a reference is always good. So here is one: Gemini (no.18, pp.6-8), 1988. You’ll notice that the date is 1988, and if you look at this reference, it shows that there is no significant net shrinking of the sun from 1715 to 1988. Other studies support this, while your single creationist line is from a preliminary study in 1979.
No, it’s the scientific consensus view of real scientists using real observations of both the real scattered disk and the real full range of decay stages in real comets. I encourage you to learn some science.
So how do you interpret such verses, bibleblevr? Do you believe this verse to be a lie, as C4 would call it? How do you interpret such verses in light of what science has taught us about the brain?
It was meant to let you know that I was being somewhat lighthearted. Tone doesn't come across in a forum, that's what emoticons are for.
No, the greater theological truth in that passage was accomodated to Job's level of understanding. What God wanted to say was said very well through the perspective of a man in a pre-scientific era.
You're the one criticizing the discovery, you need to get these documented dates. If you say that these molecules can't survive for millions of years, yet they can survive for 4,400 years, then it is up to you to demonstrate why this is.
I give up, what were they?
It says that hemes are found, not red blood cells. Hemes are molecules, as far as I know (not my area of expertise). Soft tissue would need to be composed of several cells, where as what was found were the remaining molecules of what used to be soft tissue. Also, you're going to have to explain the geological evidence of age as well. From your source:
