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.
Smidlee said:even though this is off topic. " Pangea " theory is the a great example of how "appearances" can be decieving. The biggest problem with these theory is the excessive erosion rates of the continents. Of course this isn't as bad of a problem if you believe the continents broke apart a few thousands years ago but geologists want to believe in happens millions of years ago. But how do you keep the coastline from erosion in the mean time. Because of this there a few geologists not happy about this idea. USA spends about 1/2 billions dollars a year trying to keep our coastline from erosion. These is a very serious problem for a country like Japan that can't afford to lost ground.
You must be a true believers then. I'm not. Even some scientist are beginning to question this theory.
Calminian said:It always amazes me that some feel they know exactly what kind of trail a miracle of God will leave. This is the flaw in thinking of the OEC movement. Its not a flaw in their scientific knowledge its a problem with their understanding of miracles.
While scripture tells us the heavens were stretched out it gives us no details about how it was done. The mechanisms God used aren't given, whether he used physical laws to any degree or simply bypassed them all. Yet OECs seem to always claim they know exactly what kind of trail supernatural acts will leave. In essence youre are right now saying God cannot stretch out the heavens without leaving a photon trail. Thats a pretty lofty claim.
Which proves nothing considering the change (according to the Bible) was a Supernatural thus outside the realm of scientific investigation.
This is another recurring argument from OEC sources. The fact that we come up with natural explanations that logically work does not prove something supernatural did not happen. For instance one could examine the wine Christ created and come up with a very possible scenario for how it might have been produced naturally. What does this prove? As you probably know many have come up with possible non supernatural explanations for the empty tombThe Passover Plot for instance. What do they prove?
To repeat myself: Yes, but that isn't science.Calminian said:[bunch of stuff deleted]Robert the Pilegrim said:Yes, but that isn't science...
Liberty Wing said:This is simply a different interpretation of the red shift evidence based on different assertions. The CMB is explained clearly in Dr Humphreys' theory outlined in his book. God also made stars in a varity of sizes, colour and so on...
Do you believe the Jesus was born of a virgin?gluadys said:It is an interpretation that takes serious liberties with the biblical text by wresting it from its intended meaning through anachronistic insertion of modern scientific concepts into a time when no one on earth was cognizant of them.
How creationists can uphold such incredible distortion of the "plain" meaning of the text and yet challenge TEs on their non-literal interpretations strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy.
At least with a non-literal interpretation, I don't have to tear the text to shreds to make it conform to modern science. Instead I can respect both the text and its author by entering into the author's world view and abstract his meaning from that---including the important theological messages that remain intact as his science becomes outdated.
Sorry, but the sheer stupidity of this kind of pseudo-hermeneutics just ticks me off royally.
Liberty Wing said:How creationists can uphold such incredible distortion of the "plain" meaning of the text and yet challenge TEs on their non-literal interpretations strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy.
God stretched out the heavens implies that the heavens expanded. But how and when?
This is what TEs do, they willingly ignore the intended meaning of Genesis (in doing so, ignoring Exodus 20:11) and hence, cannot be compared to what creationists do (as TEs question the face value in light of so-called science, i.e. evolutionism).
WHAT!?!? :o :o :oThat is exactly what you are doing [making the Bible conform to the pseudo-science of evolutionism]! You are taking man's ideas of the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the origin of rock and fossil formations and try to mix it into the Bible! You are basically putting the so-called scientific theory of evolutionism and throwing it into the Bible and trying to change the Bible to fit your view!
Where in Genesis does it give any indication of one day (evening passed and morning came - the nth day) being the equalivalent of billions of years?
You've already destroyed the message of the Gospel the moment that you either deny Adam's existence or compromise with evolution:
Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.
As harsh as this may sound, but what ever changes the atheists make to the theory of evolution, TE also changes accordingly
-- I find it sad that Christians put their faith in the words of fallible men who weren't there and who do NOT know everything, as opposed to trusting in God's Word.
via the sadisticly brutal processes of evolutionism
What creationists do, is use specific verses and try to use them to create solutions to unaswered questions or problems in the creationist model. For example, the verse that says "He stretched forth the heavens" -> that God expanded the heavens at some time, and we then go on and try to find out how God did that -
Carl Linnaeus strongly believed that the animals and plants were made according to their kinds, just as the Bible says repeatedly in Genesis 1. For example, Genesis 1:12, 21, 25. He based his science and animal classifications on the what the Bible said at a face value -- this is exactly what creationists do.
Creationists work only solely from the Bible - even if all the scientific evidence pointed away from the Bible, creationists would still try and find Biblical verses and make new and improved theories to counter the enemy's teachings (without compromising the Truth of the Gospel).[/size][/font][/font]
duordi said:By definition "curved space" which has been proven by science sounds a lot like something which is unrolled.
Maybe the tent thing is intended to be a literal descripition.
Just a thought.
Duane
gluadys said:It is intended to be a description of the firmament. It is not intended to be a description of space. The author did not know there was any such thing as space, so he had no intention of describing it.
gluadys said:You are still trying to shoe-horn modern science into an ancient text. That is not a legitimate hermeneutical tactic. It is a wresting of the text away from its intended meaning.
duordi said:The idea that the Bible can not contain any more information then the original author had is wrong.
I find it somewhat hypercritical for you to accuse of shoe-horning while you take the liberty of reordering verse sequences to fit your preferences.
Sascha Fitzpatrick said:I just started thinking about this...
How do we, as Creationists, take light years?
Mind you, I'm not a 'literalist', I believe that the 7 days were days according to how God saw days, and I don't really get stressed about whether or not it was literal (please don't bother getting upset about my opinion on this - I get enough grief from AIG followers!), so in my opinion, those first couple of days could have been eons.
Anyway, if we are to believe that the world is only 6000 or so years old, where does light years come into it? Cos that talks about BILLIONS of years!
Thanks!
Sasch
Despite my earlier comment I do think that trying to equate unfolding the firmament with an expansion of the universe to be a stretchgluadys said:I disagree. Since the author is the source of information, the information must be known or believed by the author.duordi said:The idea that the Bible can not contain any more information then the original author had is wrong.
Robert the Pilegrim said:gluadys said:duordi said:The idea that the Bible can not contain any more information then the original author had is wrong.
Despite my earlier comment I do think that trying to equate unfolding the firmament with an expansion of the universe to be a stretch
OTOH I would not rule out God moving an author's will to provide more meaning to a passage the author intended or understood at the time.
On a related note, I think that stories can have multiple meanings, they may have both symbolic and literal meanings, e.g. I don't discount the possibility that the Song of Solomon is both a love song about mortal love and a commentary about the relationship between God and his worshippers.
I think the pre-Reformation Church pushed this to an extreme, with four layers of meaning to just about everything.
So, moderation in all things
I would agree on multiple figurative meanings. Especially in poetic passages a reader may well draw meaning from a text that the author did not consciously intend. Poetry, after all, is intended to be evocative.
But that is different than attempting to make an ancient text refer literally to facts of which the author was unaware. If the author is comparing the heavens to a tent, the poetic meanings should take their cue from that image. Furthermore they should be understood as figurative meanings.
When literalists apply a passage like this to the inflationary period of the expansion of the universe as set out in big bang theory as "proof" the bible was way ahead of its time scientifically, they are, in effect, saying that the literal meaning of the passage is and always was in accord with today's science.
Not only do I think that is anachronistic interpretation, I would add, why would God inspire the author to refer to our particular science? What if one could show the "stretching out" of the heavens did point to the inflation of the universe? And what if a century or so from now we discover that there was no inflation and the cosmological problems it was introduced to solve can be explained better another way? Tieing the scriptures to the scientific truths of one era, means that it will eventually be tied to outdated science. So why would God countenance that?
No, the author may have believed the heavens were literally like a big tent. In that he was wrong. But he was not wrong poetically. We can still appreciate the truth he was pointing to. Let's leave it at that and not make pseudo-equations to today's scientific fact, which, after all, may be tomorrow's scientific error.
Genesis4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch...
horuhe00 said:(notice "land of Nod" not "Land of Nod")
gluadys said:Robert the Pilegrim said:Have you ever thought of making a list of all the things God can't do.gluadys said:I would agree on multiple figurative meanings. Especially in poetic passages a reader may well draw meaning from a text that the author did not consciously intend. Poetry, after all, is intended to be evocative.
But that is different than attempting to make an ancient text refer literally to facts of which the author was unaware. If the author is comparing the heavens to a tent, the poetic meanings should take their cue from that image. Furthermore they should be understood as figurative meanings.
When literalists apply a passage like this to the inflationary period of the expansion of the universe as set out in big bang theory as "proof" the bible was way ahead of its time scientifically, they are, in effect, saying that the literal meaning of the passage is and always was in accord with today's science.
Not only do I think that is anachronistic interpretation, I would add, why would God inspire the author to refer to our particular science? What if one could show the "stretching out" of the heavens did point to the inflation of the universe? And what if a century or so from now we discover that there was no inflation and the cosmological problems it was introduced to solve can be explained better another way? Tieing the scriptures to the scientific truths of one era, means that it will eventually be tied to outdated science. So why would God countenance that?
No, the author may have believed the heavens were literally like a big tent. In that he was wrong. But he was not wrong poetically. We can still appreciate the truth he was pointing to. Let's leave it at that and not make pseudo-equations to today's scientific fact, which, after all, may be tomorrow's scientific error.
My biggest problem with this idea is that there are no verses saying God will not place meaning beyond what the author intends.
There are many indications that the Bible can say several things about different time periods with the same passage.
There is only one truly correct interpretation.
But that correct interpretation can be as complicated as the true author, which I take to be God and not the guy holding the pen.
Duane
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?