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 claims six literal days of creation, followed by 4,000 years of genealogy, interrupted by the crucifixion, then followed by 2,000 years until the present.
Every other theory relies on twisting scripture into something that it doesn't say.
And again, popularity does not validate anything. At one point the earth was considered flat by everyone. Did them believing it have any bearing on fact?
At one point the earth was considered flat by everyone. Did them believing it have any bearing on fact?
How does that have anything to do with the Bible?Or knowing how Jewish genealogies work. Read The Chronicles of Narnia for a clue that persists still.
How does that have anything to do with the Bible?
Agreed. Jewish literary style should be taken into account. And their genealogy is pretty dead on.The way you choose tom read it nothing. But since the OT is a Jewish account most people who strop and think for a second would realize that how Jewish writing in general works makes a huge difference into just what conclusions one should draw from Scripture.
Yet the Bible never claims that the earth was created flat. It mentions common phrases like "corners of the earth" but never claims that God made the earth to be flat.Yes, everyone including the authors of the bible believed a flat earth cosmology.
It claims six literal days of creation,
followed by 4,000 years of genealogy,
interrupted by the crucifixion, then followed by 2,000 years until the present.
Every other theory relies on twisting scripture into something that it doesn't say.
And again, popularity does not validate anything. At one point the earth was considered flat by everyone. Did them believing it have any bearing on fact?
Agreed. Jewish literary style should be taken into account. And their genealogy is pretty dead on.
You interviewed them, did you?Yes, everyone including the authors of the bible believed a flat earth cosmology.
In Tibet the Buddhist monks would purify their intestines off all bacteria. So when they died the body did not decompose. Even they say some of the remains were up to 500 years old. The Gov did not like this and they wanted the remains deposed of. A lot of the problem is that there is a huge amount of resources in the Tibet mountains. The China government just wants to go in and take what they want. The Tibetan people are not happy about the modern world moving into their country, but there really is not a lot that they can do about it.I hear that the commies in the revolution used things like acid to try to destroy remains.
You use the argument that *most catholics and Christians" agree as if it's relevant to truth.How exactly were you counting "days" prior to a sun again? You might start by explaining why you're so sure those are "human days" rather than say "God days" (aka relative to God's concept of a day).
Starting from when? How do you know with absolute certainty that it's an entirely inclusive list of genealogy in the first place?
Well, at least we'll agree on that much.
How do you know that a literal translation isn't "twisting scripture" in the first place again? Most folks interpret some or all of it metaphorically, including most Catholics, and most other Christians, including myself.
Then again, your *assumption* we *absolutely must* interpret every passage literally is going to run headlong into Christ's use of *metaphor* once we get to what he actually said while walking on the planet 2000 years ago.
Will {one rotation of the earth on its axis} help?How exactly were you counting "days" prior to a sun again?
You use the argument that *most catholics abs Christians" agree as if it's relevant to truth.
That aside, the Bible employs many different literary styles. Jesus spoke in parables. Some verses are metaphors. Some passages are poetry. Then some are literal.
The literary style of the creation account is consistent with the Hebrew style of factual, historical record.
The Bible also states there was light on the first day.
Radiometric dating goes on the assumption that the earth is old. They completely throw out the idea of a young earth or flood, and interpret everything as if it was a fact that the earth was billions of years old. Yet, when they test things with known ages, they have been off by millions of years.I doubt most Jews believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
How exactly did you intend to square your highly personal belief system about a single book with the rest of physics and life in general?
How do you deal with radiometric dating techniques, all of which demonstrate that the Earth is ancient? How does your belief system work with galaxies that are currently measured in millions and billions of *light years* of distance from us, in a universe that's less than 10,000 years old again?
Will {one rotation of the earth on its axis} help?
Is the sun necessary for a {day} to transpire?
So, every other book can use different styles of literature, but we must not assume the Bible has those same styles?I'm simply noting that different "sects" of "Christianity" interpret the Bible differently, and your personal interpretation tends to be in the minority position. In terms of "science", most folks rely upon a variety of sources when forming their "belief systems", they rarely rely upon a single source as you seem to be insisting on doing for some reason.
It gets super subjective the moment you start "interpreting" various passages *literally*, while Jesus himself used a variety of metaphor in his teachings. Even when we get to the red letter parts of that book, we find that Christ himself used metaphor that wasn't meant to be interpreted literally.
So like every 'Christian', you're subjectively picking and choosing which passages to interpret literally and which to interpret metaphorically. How do you know you got *every single one* right, particularly since you're sporting the *minority* viewpoint, and none of it squares with empirical physics?
I seriously doubt that even all Jews believe that the books of Moses were always intended to be interpreted literally. How many Jews do you think believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
Sunlight, or background starlight from stars that are currently presumed to be millions and billions of light years from Earth?
I've yet to hear you explain how any light from any other "sun", could have reached Earth to measure a "day", when the very closest one is *light years* away from Earth, and the furthest ones are *billions* of light years from Earth?
It dosen't matter if I exist or not.If you're standing on Earth, and no starlight has reached Earth, how would you even measure a "rotation cycle" in the first place?
You interviewed them, did you?
Radiometric dating goes on the assumption that the earth is old.
They completely throw out the idea of a young earth or flood, and interpret everything as if it was a fact that the earth was billions of years old.
Yet, when they test things with known ages, they have been off by millions of years.
As to lightyears, Einstein explains time dilation in reference to the earth being in a gravitational well, the affect of that on time.
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?