How old is the world?

[Floodnut]

Indeed.

So getting to the intended "plain sense" isn't so easy, after all, is it Floodnut?

Do I detect a note of catty arrogance here? The length of time Adam was in the Garden has nothing to do with it. and the God-breathed text still leaves us with 6000 years, quite plainly.

 

[A Freethinker]

Why not?
I mean what is it about a 51 year old man that makes him unfit to criticize your judgement?
Or what is it about a Seafood Department manager that makes him unfit to criticize your argument?
What if he was a 35 year old stay at home dad?
Would his age or occupation (or lack thereof) make him more fit (or less) to criticize then?


(Not that I actually agree with anything floodnut has said so far)

A 51-year-old working in a supermarket isn't likely to be very educated, and not likely to be very intelligent. I don't have much need for the philosophical opinions of my bagboy when I go to the store. If he was a 51-year-old who had retired from a successful career as a college professor, I would be more inclined to care about what he has to say on these matters. The only thing I would value from Floodnut is his opinion on how to best cook my salmon.

EDIT: If he were a 30-something stay at home father, I would want to know more about his background and education. He could be staying at home in his trailer with his 13 kids on welfare or staying in his suburban mansion, having retired early thanks to a booming startup business.


You asked.

 

[nvxplorer]

OK, if you want to impose modern new meanings on ancient words, they are stars. The original meaning of the word cocovim is small twinkling object in the night sky. Some were differentiated as "wandering stars" and these are the planets, asteroids, and comets.

News flash: Planets don't twinkle.

 

[nvxplorer]

I have no idea what tempest is going on in your teapot, but the text of II Timonthy 3:16 says the Scirptures are breathed out by God. What is the problem here?

What version are you using?

Mine says this:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[And-U-Say]

Jesus taught slaves to be meek and humble and not to rebell. Paul taught slave owners to treat their slaves as Brothers and that we are all equal -bond and free. It is Christians and their proclamation of the truth of God that finally ended slavery in America, although it was the Christians of England that had to lead the way.

So, you are ignoring the old testament? I thought it was part of the bible? And Paul saying to treat slaves like brothers? Which verse is this?

 

[LittleNipper]

So, you are ignoring the old testament? I thought it was part of the bible? And Paul saying to treat slaves like brothers? Which verse is this?

Read the very short book PHILEMON. Paul writes an eloquent letter to the owners on behalf of a slave named Onesimus.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Read the very short book PHILEMON. Paul writes an eloquent letter to the owners on behalf of a slave named Onesimus.

yes but he sends him back as a slave,
doesn't tell Onesimus that he is free, nor does he tell Philemon to release him, only to treat him as a brother.

there are no verses condemning slavery in either the OT or the NT for an extraordinary defense of slavery see:
http://tinyurl.com/79b6r

or read my essay on the topic at:
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap6.html


but it is really off topic, if you really want to discuss the issue start a new thread somewhere and email or pm me the link.
i have about 2 years into reading on the topic.
including several hundred pro-slavery sermons.


btw

t is Christians and their proclamation of the truth of God that finally ended slavery in America, although it was the Christians of England that had to lead the way.

it was Quakers, Unitarians and Rationalists that lead the way in the US. however not in England-Wilberforce i believe was methodist, however many methodists didn't leave the Church of England, i'm not sure he did.


....

 

[L'Anatra]

Do I detect a note of catty arrogance here?

No. I was not attempting to be malicious. I was rather trying to point out that your claim was false, precisely because another Christian sees the Bible differently than you do.

But I'm not surprised you'd say such a thing.

The length of time Adam was in the Garden has nothing to do with it.

Really?

and the God-breathed text still leaves us with 6000 years, quite plainly.

Sure it does. Keep living in your dream world.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have no idea what tempest is going on in your teapot, but the text of II Timonthy 3:16 says the Scirptures are breathed out by God. What is the problem here?

[BIBLE]2 Timothy 3:16[/BIBLE]

You're still running off that "brethed out" rubbish? Doesn't anyone own a dictionary anymore?

 

[corvus_corax]

You're still running off that "brethed out" rubbish? Doesn't anyone own a dictionary anymore?

That's because Floodnut is looking at the roots of the words, not the english translations
"Inspired by" isn't entirely correct, apparently.

From Blueletterbible-
theopneustos- inspired by God
From theos (a deity) and a presumed derivative of pneo (to breathe, to blow)
"Breathed (or "blown" as in a wind) from God"

Yes, as has been pointed out, modern English translations use "Inspired" (which, as has also been pointed out, means breathing in). However, this appears to be incorrect, and the English translators likely used "inspired" due to the fact that most readers would understand the concept. (NIV uses "God breathed", as does the Amplified and Young's literal translation)

 

[corvus_corax]

A 51-year-old working in a supermarket isn't likely to be very educated, and not likely to be very intelligent. I don't have much need for the philosophical opinions of my bagboy when I go to the store. If he was a 51-year-old who had retired from a successful career as a college professor, I would be more inclined to care about what he has to say on these matters. The only thing I would value from Floodnut is his opinion on how to best cook my salmon.

EDIT: If he were a 30-something stay at home father, I would want to know more about his background and education. He could be staying at home in his trailer with his 13 kids on welfare or staying in his suburban mansion, having retired early thanks to a booming startup business.


You asked.

Yes I did
I was only wondering due to the fact that the majority of members on these forums probably dont have degrees in fields that they debate. Hence I wonder why anyone would attack another's age or profession, due to the fact that most people's age or profession are not in question.

Myself for example...my knowledge of the matters I debate are largely based on self education, being a high school dropout with no higher education. If anybody insulted my posts based on my age, profession, or lack of formal education, they would be welcomed to my ignore list very quickly (I do, however, find it acceptable when someone points out where I am incorrect, or demonstrates the holes in my knowledge)

If one wants to hear only from those who have specialized knowledge of the subjects at hand, one should only discuss such subjects with members like Aron-Ra and Gmorton (among other worthies)


Sorry for the OT rant, I think Im done now

 

[Loudmouth]

Do I detect a note of catty arrogance here? The length of time Adam was in the Garden has nothing to do with it. and the God-breathed text still leaves us with 6000 years, quite plainly.

Can you prove that the Bible is 6,000 years old? Last I heard, the oldest text found so far was from around the time of Jesus, give or take a hundred years.

 

[L'Anatra]

Can you prove that the Bible is 6,000 years old? Last I heard, the oldest text found so far was from around the time of Jesus, give or take a hundred years.

What Floodnut is saying (I presume) is that his "plain reading" of the Bible indicates that the universe is 6,000 years old, not that the Bible itself is.

 

[Floodnut]

Indeed.

So getting to the intended "plain sense" isn't so easy, after all, is it Floodnut?

I don't know that it is easy to derive the Plain Sense intended by the writers. There is a need to understand the culture and the language of the time. But having diligently considered the language, the culture, the audience, the conclusion is that the sense of Genesis One is literal, and this is how Jesus took it.

Making it mean whatever you want is what is easy.

 

[Floodnut]

Well, for staters, you might want to brush up on your vocabulary...
"Inspired" doesn't mean "beathe out," but "breathe in." The prefix IN- is sort of a givaway on that one.

Breathed in to fallible humans by God, who then took on the incredibly daunting task of transferring Divine Revelation into fallible limited human language.

The product of anything handled by the fallible is hardly infallible.

God can move upon fallible men to produce an infallible result. The text of II Timothy 3:16 means that the Scriptures are breathed out by God.

 

[Floodnut]

now the origional bible may have been error free but through all this translating who knows what happened.

Yes, it is true things can be lost in translation. But we have copies of the original documents as they came from the hand of the human writers used by God to provide us with the infallible Scriptures.

 

[Floodnut]

Did you not see the sarcasm in that post? It was dripping so badly, I'm still wiping my monitor?

Of course, and there was sarcasm in my response, but what you said is still a great illustration of the folly of Christians trying to accomodate the Scriptures to Evoltutionism.

 

[L'Anatra]

I don't know that it is easy to derive the Plain Sense intended by the writers. There is a need to understand the culture and the language of the time. But having diligently considered the language, the culture, the audience, the conclusion is that the sense of Genesis One is literal, and this is how Jesus took it.

Making it mean whatever you want is what is easy.

That's your conclusion, not "the" conclusion. Many people who have diligently considered the same things have come to a different one.

 

[L'Anatra]

Of course, and there was sarcasm in my response, but what you said is still a great illustration of the folly of Christians trying to accomodate the Scriptures to Evoltutionism.

Why is it a folly?

 

[Floodnut]

Nah, you are just threatened by other religions, which is clear by your constant use of my status as a non-christian in this debate.

The Bible is false, and I don't think a 51-year-old man still working in a supermarket is fit to criticize my judgement.

Other religions are inventions of men, doctrines of demons, and faint recollections of primeval truth. God is so big and infinite that the false religions are no threat to the Truth.