Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Frank Robert]

Yes, I am aware of it.

That's why they're called "scholars."

Good to know you are aware that things got into the bible that were not the direct word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for the brotherly insults, AV! I appreciate it.

Merry Christmas to you, too!

Hey.

I can't help it I'm disappointed.

And I didn't mean any insult.

If you want to use the argument that I'm saying the earth "looks old," and not the point that the earth "is old," knock yourself out.

But note that, even when I agree with scholars that the earth is older than 6000 years, that's not good enough for them.

I have to agree with them that the earth has been in existence for longer than 6000 years, or I'm Apparent Age, Omphalos, Last Thursday, confused, deceived, not taking Genesis metaphorically, not thinking outside the box, and whatever else isn't in my profile.

No.

Science isn't going to compromise.

And neither will I.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good to know you are aware that things got into the bible that were not the direct word of God.

There's nothing there that doesn't belong.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It is not deceptive. It simply a belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Most of the ~40,000 Christian denominations do not believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

It is ridiculous that anyone believes Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally while knowing the fact that many chapters after it obviously are not. For example, when Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out," he could not have meant we should be half blind. So for me it goes far beyond the undeniable scientific proof that Earth is round and billions of years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is ridiculous that anyone believes Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally while knowing the fact that many chapters after it obviously are not. For example, when Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out," he could not have meant we should be half blind. So for me it goes far beyond the undeniable scientific proof that Earth is round and billions of years old.

Your example is not a chapter.

And the Bible is a serious Letter to us from God.

So It wouldn't start out with metaphor.

In other words, the Bible is a literal Writing that CONTAINS metaphor.

It is not a metaphorical Writing that contains literalisms.

And in almost every single instance where metaphor is used, the Bible alerts us to it.

Be it metaphor, a parable,* a dream, or whatever.

* The parables are interesting. They are real incidents that occurred; not some thought-up witticisms.

 

[Astrid]

From this statement I assume you are not sure whether to believe in God or not.

I dont

 

[GodLovesCats]

Good to know you are aware that things got into the bible that were not the direct word of God.

Fortunately those things were taken out of it by a very good man named Martin Luther. We know for a fact all Bibles with 66 books are the direct Word of God and all Bibles that have more books include man-made text that is incorrectly claimed to be inspired by God.

 

[Kylie]

You don't know either, do you?

Perhaps you could explain the difference between "X has the appearance of Y" and "X looks like Y."

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you could explain the difference between "X has the appearance of Y" and "X looks like Y."

I'll pass.

 

[Kylie]

I'll pass.

Well, I'll keep considering them the same thing, okay?

Funny, you make all these claims, yet you seen very reluctant to back them up.

This seems odd considering you have started threads in which you have said you are taking questions on a variety of topics...

Taking Question on the Creation and/or the Flood

Taking Questions on the Creation

Taking questions on the Creation. (Yes, this is a different thread to the previous one.)

Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

Taking questions on the Creation

Taking Questions on the Creation Week

Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation (2)

Taking Questions on Instant Creation

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

Taking Questions on Creationism

Taking Questions on Genesis

Taking Questions on Christianity

Seems unusual that you would start so many threads to take questions, yet when I ask you a question that specifically falls into one the categories you started at least three threads for (embedded age creation), you seem very reluctant to answer.

Perhaps I'll ask my question over there.

 

[Astrid]

Fortunately those things were taken out of it by a very good man named Martin Luther. We know for a fact all Bibles with 66 books are the direct Word of God and all Bibles that have more books include man-made text that is incorrectly claimed to be inspired by God.

How do you know that for a fact.

 

[Frank Robert]

It is ridiculous that anyone believes Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally while knowing the fact that many chapters after it obviously are not. For example, when Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out," he could not have meant we should be half blind. So for me it goes far beyond the undeniable scientific proof that Earth is round and billions of years old.

It is not only what has been removed from the bible what was also has been changed. A recent topic at Peaceful Science explored "The Meanings of Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible?"

I found the post by Catholic Philosopher, Victor Torley enlightening.

 

[Astrid]

It is ridiculous that anyone believes Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally while knowing the fact that many chapters after it obviously are not. For example, when Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out," he could not have meant we should be half blind. So for me it goes far beyond the undeniable scientific proof that Earth is round and billions of years old.

Evidence that anyone thought it not literal
until modern times when science made
the story's literal accuracy untenable?

That some things are presented at different
times and by different people in different ways
says nothing of original intent re Genesis.

A lot of the bible is clearly the words of individuals,
and there's poetry, etc. Ge esis is supposed to be
straight from God.

If you are going to say Genesis doesnt mean
what it says, start with " God created " and cancel
the whole book.

 

[Platte]

Why is that logical?

Or are you in AVs camp that God is deceptive in making the world 6000 years ago but made it all look, in every single testable way, 4.5 billion years old?

God is deceptive? Where did that concept come from? God creating Adam as a man instead of a baby was deceptive?

 

[Platte]

This is not a response to my post but a diversion.
You have got things around the wrong way science is not confirmed by history, history is confirmed by science.
Are you not familiar with the Winston Churchill saying “History is Written by the Victors.”
Earlier in this thread I mentioned after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians attempted to erase the Hyksos from history by not including their pharaohs into the king lists of the time including erasing their names from monuments
Censorship however was not 100% watertight as the Turin king list included the Hyksos.
It took science through archaeology to confirm the Hyksos were not only present in Egypt but ruled as pharaohs for a considerable period of time.

History is about recording events and the Bible fails on the first hurdle.
The Bible does not explicitly state creation occurred in 4004 BC, the flood in 2348 BC or the Exodus in 1491 BC, these are interpretations made long after the supposed events.
In fact when it comes to the creation date it seems every man and his dog has had a shot.

View attachment 324612​

The Bible fails on the second hurdle ironically using your own idea.
As you have admitted the earliest evidence of writing is around 3400 BC which falls 600 years short of the creation date hence recorded history does not support with the creation date of 4004 BC.
Then there is the science itself which doesn't need to be repeated which shows the Earth is considerably older than 6000 years.

Writing fails miserably to support 4000bc creation. By 600 years you say. Hmmmmm when do you think the world began billions of years before writing. Give me a break. Silly. History supports the creation timeline and location.

 

[Platte]

Why not? Or do you mean to the day
or hour?

All coal dates to 300m years ago

 

[Astrid]

All coal dates to 300m years ago

False and irrelevant

 

[Astrid]

Writing fails miserably to support 4000bc creation. By 600 years you say. Hmmmmm when do you think the world began billions of years before writing. Give me a break. Silly. History supports the creation timeline and location.

Nonsense

 

[Platte]

False and irrelevant

Why was most of the Earth’s coal made all at once?

It wasn’t because fungi couldn’t break down early trees, study argues.

arstechnica.com

 

[AV1611VET]

God is deceptive? Where did that concept come from? God creating Adam as a man instead of a baby was deceptive?

God can't create a loaf of raisin bread without being considered deceptive.