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.
bibleblevr, I'd be curious to know whether you find C4's seething style of YECism convincing at all. We see it a lot here, but I wonder whether it actually convinces those still on the fence to sign up with YECism, or if it has the opposite effect.
Are people still arguing that a circle = a sphere?
It's not like a flat earth was ever envisioned to be completely 2D. It was still 3D, but more like a giant disc in space rather than a sphere.
It's not thunderfoot.I thought I recognized that voice. It's that maniac, thunderfoot on You Tube.
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?Translate: "Do you really like the way he is nailing us with facts...facts that are bothersome to us...especially about the T-Rex with soft tissue that is somehow 68 million yrs old against all observed facts and common sense?"
Translate: "Wouldn't you rather believe us than Moses or Jesus about creation?"
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."It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22
'circle' - 'circuit' from the Hebrew 'shuwg', 'hugh' used in reference to the vault of the heavens (a sphere of stars above the earth). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
circle - "the Bible therefore taught the globular shape of the earth long before the fact was discovered by modern astronomers." Bible Encycolpedia of 1901.
bibleblevr, I'd be curious to know whether you find C4's seething style of YECism convincing at all. We see it a lot here, but I wonder whether it actually convinces those still on the fence to sign up with YECism, or if it has the opposite effect.
There is no God of the Gaps, it's a clutch phrase.
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?However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.
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 am aware of the concept of divine providence and that was not the intent of Moses when he wrote Genesis. This is about the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, nothing more. I have examined the evidence for evolution and invariably there is more assumption then proof.
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 think what you are doing is unconscionable, nothing in your discussion warrants the flagrant string of insults that make up the bulk of your statement.
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, stop right there. You are free to question my statements but you have no call to question my motives. I asked you a straightforward question with the actual evidence before you and you refused to look at it. Let's try this again and we can dispense with this pretentious, 'if you are absolutely right', nonsense.
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.Is the statement, 'chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA with humans', true or false? That is a straightforward question and I quoted, cited and linked the paper so you cannot pretend you don't have the answer in front of you. You want to moralize about dishonest arguments and misstatements of fact then show me you have the courage of your convictions and answer the question based on the actual evidence.
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.Probably because it's not an issue and most of the Creationists that come on here are run off by the endless string of personal attacks.
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.AIG is attacked because it's creationist, that is the only reason.
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12.2)
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.Currently, it seems that each YEC" proof" that has found it's way to the thread gets torn to pieces, and the YE rebutals are mainly based on incomplete scientific models, that are promptly exposed.
I don't care how "seething" anyone gets, what I am looking at, is what points still stand, and which ones have been knocked down. Currently, it seems that each YEC" proof" that has found it's way to the thread gets torn to pieces, and the YE rebutals are mainly based on incomplete scientific models, that are promptly exposed.
It's not thunderfoot.
I see that you are new to interpreting passages so I will lend a hand here.
The verse says "it is turned as clay to the seal." So your first picture is the stamp that is used on the clay, and your second picture is clay before it is stamped, both of which are round(ish). What will happen to the clay when you stamp it? Does it become a sphere or a disc? Remember, the verse says "it is turned as clay to the seal". So why are you showing images that are not clay seals to make your point, and mallon is?
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?
I don't care how "seething" anyone gets, what I am looking at, is what points still stand, and which ones have been knocked down. Currently, it seems that each YEC" proof" that has found it's way to the thread gets torn to pieces, and the YE rebutals are mainly based on incomplete scientific models, that are promptly exposed.
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.Do you know what the word 'max' means?
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.That's because, like you, they have a deep seeded prejudice against the real facts and against the biblical teaching to begin with. I've been around long enough to see that in multiple examples.
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 continents 'used to be near the equator'. Really? Give the name of your observer for this 'fact'.
Except that that is exactly what the evidence points to.
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.The 5 feet a year number is not accurate because many measurements have shown that the sun size fluctuates a bit in both directions. To take one measurement from around 1980, ignore tons of subsequent measurements, and say it shows shrinkage, is like saying that because it warmed from 50 F this morning to 80 F this afternoon, then it must have been below zero yesterday afternoon.
You didn't document your 'facts'. The creationists did.
Nope. You haven't done your homework well enough. The above dates are based upon fallacious assumptions. quote - "a two-week dry spell followed by watering can cause a tree to shut down and then re-establish growth, mimicking a “winter” season’s ring.
Like the receding moon PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), this is over 1,000 times as old as the literalist approach of 6,000 years – so even if true, this would give evidence against a creationist model. Of course, this, like all of these, is done by ignoring most of the evidence in the field. The magnetic field lines of the earth are well known to assist in helium removal, and the data is consistent with a 4.6 billion year old earth. This PRATT is used by Humphreys, a well known liar who fabricates data by using rigged conditions, such as using a vacuum to “simulate” rocks under high pressure under the earth.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before. Humphreys is not a liar. But the evolutionists are...deliberately to escape the truth. Proof:
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.That [the explanation of the scattered disk and short period comets] is purely your opinion without documented facts to support it.
Give me the established date that soft tissue hardens, ossifies, or calcifies. Document it.
The object on this "stamp" is NOT flat. It has relief.
That is such much baloney you couldn't fit it through a big barn door.
Dear friend, why don't you just believe what your Lord told you in scripture?
"For in six days the Lord God made the heaven's and the earth and all that in them is..." Exodus 20:11 in the TEN COMMANDMENTS no less!
Jesus confirmed all that Moses spoke and never hinted a word about evolution. Why would He since evolution did not then nor does now exist in this present world.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" Mark 10:6.
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve." I Timothy 2:13.
Friend, there is no way anyone can refer to that union as asexual...which some evolutionists believe life had its origin on earth.
But those words of Timothy have no meaning whatsoever if evolution is true and true sexual union evolved over millions of years. Do you see a problem here?
You are required by the Lord to believe what He says in the most plain sense, and in the more plain sense of His Word there is both biblical and scientific evidence for the truthfulness and veracity of Jesus Christ. That includes all He said about Genesis.
Lastly...think(!)...Jude tells us that "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints..." vs 14. If evolution is true then how could Enoch be the seventh from Adam in ANY time frame scenario other than the one listed by Moses in Genesis 5?
I urge you: reject evolution and believe what your Lord has plainly told you.
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?The Bible teaches that the heart is the organ that understands, and not the brain. we now know this to be false, but the scriptures that include the word heart are still used and valued as much as ever despite becoming understood as metaphorical.
John 12:40
"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
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.With your tongue sticking out at me I am wondering how old you are.
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.Question: Did God lie to Job about the shape of the earth? Yes/no.
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.a. Give me the established date that soft tissue hardens, ossifies, or calcifies. Document it.
I give up, what were they?b. What were the carbon 14 dates for the Schweitzer discovery?
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 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:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?