My rock challenge

[SavedByGrace3]

Very like creating stars that are 13 billion light years away, and then creating the light that would proceed from them to our eyes.
Either the universe is really 13 billion years old, or it would seem someone is trying very hard to make it look that way.

I would say that if the universe is only a few thousand years old, and someone made it look 13 billion years old... well. I would like to know the reason why.
After all, if someone had the power to do such things, they would not have to lie. Like the president said, "I am the president, I do not have to lie."

 

[AV1611VET]

Very like creating stars that are 13 billion light years away, and then creating the light that would proceed from them to our eyes.

1. The light was created first.

2. No star was created 13 billion light years away. The universe was created in the hollow of God's hand, then stretched.

 

[RickG]

1. The light was created first.

2. No star was created 13 billion light years away. The universe was created in the hollow of God's hand, then stretched.

More not literal interpretation to support a literal interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

More not literal interpretation to support a literal interpretation.

Jesus born of a virgin should be a not literal interpretation too, shouldn't it?

 

[HitchSlap]

Jesus born of a virgin should be a not literal interpretation too, shouldn't it?

Right, as "young woman" is the literal translation.

 

[RickG]

Jesus born of a virgin should be a not literal interpretation too, shouldn't it?

Another red herring presented. Why am I not suprised?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Right, as "young woman" is the literal translation.

Bear in mind that while the OT passage can be translated accurately as "young woman" the same passage, quoted in the New testament, but written in greek, definately states "virgin". In doing this, it accurately quotes the Septuagint version which was translated before Christianity began.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

1. The light was created first.

2. No star was created 13 billion light years away. The universe was created in the hollow of God's hand, then stretched.

Inerrancy rescue hypotheses, without evidence for them. However, since the last sentence doesn't itself specify a time frame, or the size of God's hand, it might be construed to be consistent with the big bang theory.

 

[HitchSlap]

Bear in mind that while the OT passage can be translated accurately as "young woman" the same passage, quoted in the New testament, but written in greek, definately states "virgin". In doing this, it accurately quotes the Septuagint version which was translated before Christianity began.

Yet, every other instance where a literal "virgin" is intended, parthenos is used. So then, it would seem that "alma" was misinterpreted as parthenos, which caused the NT writers to construct the virgin birth story.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yet, every other instance where a literal "virgin" is intended, parthenos is used. So then, it would seem that "alma" was misinterpreted as parthenos, which caused the NT writers to construct the virgin birth story.

Yes. Parthenos is the GREEK word for Virgin, found in Matthew 1:23

It is used to translate "alma" in the Hebrew, which is more accurately a young woman, not necessarily a virgin. (Isaiah 7:14)

The Hebrew word normally used for "virgin" is transliterated "btuwlaah" in my interlineal English-Hebrew software.

One could adopt the view that God was behind the insertion of the word "parthenos" into the Septuagint translation, and in that way caused the prophecy to be available for fulfillment in His Son.

 

[AV1611VET]

Inerrancy rescue hypotheses, without evidence for them. However, since the last sentence doesn't itself specify a time frame, or the size of God's hand, it might be construed to be consistent with the big bang theory.

Even with the Big Bang, it presents problems.

When planetary evolution gives way to biological evolution, Genesis has whales coming before mankind.

So even interpreting Genesis 1 metaphorically creates problems.

 

[RickG]

Even with the Big Bang, it presents problems.

When planetary evolution gives way to biological evolution, Genesis has whales coming before mankind.

So even interpreting Genesis 1 metaphorically creates problems.

No need to interpret the story at all. Just view it as a story about creation as imagined by the people of the time. It's a nice story....far from fact.

 

[Kylie]

Then it's just this simple, Kylie:

1. If they reset to zero, they reset to zero.
2. If they reset to embedded age, they reset to embedded age.
3. If they don't reset, they don't reset.

I will agree with whatever age science concludes these things are.

How's that?

Not very good, because it doesn't answer the question.

If a rock layer was laid down after fossils, then it can't possibly have any embedded age in it, according to your own arguments.

However, if the world really is only 6000 years old, a rock can't date to be any older than this unless it has embedded age.

So when we have a rock which can't possibly have embedded age but still dates to several million years old, what is your explanation?

 

[Kylie]

Okay.

Okay ... let's say:

1. Rock A = 2,000,000 years old
2. Rock B = 0 years old

How's that?

Okay ... I study them and find:

1. Rock B = 0 years old
2. Rock A = 2,000,000 years old

... What?


The only way that would be true, is if you are now taking existential age (time in existence) into consideration.

Now:

1. Rock A = 2,000,000 years old physically; 0 years existentially
2. Rock B = 0 years old physically; 0 years existentially

Now they are both the same age existentially, but one is 2,000,000 years older physically.

Just like the earth:

1. 4.57 billion years old physically
2. 6000 years old existentially

See how that works now?

Yeah. You make assumptions and arbitrarily redefine "age" to hold on to your position, even though your assumptions have no basis in fact.

I see how it works very well. Do you? I'm thinking you don't...

 

[AV1611VET]

I see how it works very well.

Is that why I used a [ ] smiley?

 

[Kylie]

Is that why I used a [ ] smiley?

what does that have to do with the fact you don't know what "age" means?