Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation (2)

[All Becomes New]

Why don't you believe in an old earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

You have no rebuttal?

No, mam, I don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you believe in an old earth?

Are you asking me?

If so, I do believe the earth (and universe) is as old as God willed it.

If we find out in Heaven the earth is only 6000 years old, then so be it.

On the other hand, if we find out in Heaven the earth is 6 trillion years old, then so be it.

I can live with either.

But let's say, for the sake of arguing, that the earth is indeed 4.57 billion years old.

No problem.

BUT -- no matter how old it is -- it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

 

[Kylie]

No, mam, I don't.

I'll chalk this up to a win for me and a loss for you.

And therefore I don't want to see you use any of those points again, okay?

 

[Kylie]

Are you asking me?

If so, I do believe the earth (and universe) is as old as God willed it.

If we find out in Heaven the earth is only 6000 years old, then so be it.

On the other hand, if we find out in Heaven the earth is 6 trillion years old, then so be it.

I can live with either.

But let's say, for the sake of arguing, that the earth is indeed 4.57 billion years old.

No problem.

BUT -- no matter how old it is -- it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

"How old something is" is a measure of how long it has been in existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

"How old something is" is a measure of how long it has been in existence.

1. "Old" is a noun. Nouns can be inserted into other nouns.

2. There are some fourteen definitions for "old." You're using the wrong one.

 

[Kylie]

1. "Old" is a noun. Nouns can be inserted into other nouns.

2. There are some fourteen definitions for "old." You're using the wrong one.

If you have started talking about OLD without specifying which of the fourteen definitions you are using, then that's a you problem, not a me problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you have started talking about OLD without specifying which of the fourteen definitions you are using, then that's a you problem, not a me problem.

Even though I define "embedded age" as "maturity without history"?

Well ... now you know where I'm coming from.

So there shouldn't be any more mistakes about what I mean.

Right?

 

[All Becomes New]

BUT -- no matter how old it is -- it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

Why do you think so?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think so?

Because the Bible only allows for just over 6000 years of history.

The following chapters are useful in determining this:

1. Genesis 5
2. 1 Chronicles 1
3. Matthew 1

Those chapters bring us to AD 100, where secular history can fill in the rest.

 

[Kylie]

Even though I define "embedded age" as "maturity without history"?

Well ... now you know where I'm coming from.

So there shouldn't be any more mistakes about what I mean.

Right?

So what?

I could just as easily say that a squircle is a shape that has four straight sides but is perfectly round. All you've done is claim something has two contradictory qualities. That doesn't mean you have any kind of point.

 

[Kylie]

Because the Bible only allows for just over 6000 years of history.

The following chapters are useful in determining this:

1. Genesis 5
2. 1 Chronicles 1
3. Matthew 1

Those chapters bring us to AD 100, where secular history can fill in the rest.

Evidence from the real world disagrees.

And when there's a disagreement between AV's interpretation of the Bible and reality, guess which one I'm going to go with?

 

[All Becomes New]

Because the Bible only allows for just over 6000 years of history.

The following chapters are useful in determining this:

1. Genesis 5
2. 1 Chronicles 1
3. Matthew 1

Those chapters bring us to AD 100, where secular history can fill in the rest.

Why do you take a literal interpretation?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what?

I could just as easily say that a squircle is a shape that has four straight sides but is perfectly round. All you've done is claim something has two contradictory qualities. That doesn't mean you have any kind of point.

With that approach, Kylie, you'll never understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence from the real world disagrees.

Oh.

And when there's a disagreement between AV's interpretation of the Bible and reality, guess which one I'm going to go with?

Sjastro's pharaohs?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you take a literal interpretation?

Well for one, the Bible doesn't start out, ONCE UPON A TIME.

For another, Jesus took the Scriptures literally.

For another, the Bible almost always alerts us as to a vision, a parable, or a dream.

Not taking the Bible literally can lead to some dire consequences.

 

[Kylie]

With that approach, Kylie, you'll never understand.

Seems to me that whenever someone says this, it really means, "I know it makes no sense, but just believe it anyway..."

 

[Kylie]

Oh.

Don't act like you weren't aware. You've been told about it plenty.

Sjastro's pharaohs?

The real world.

The real world is ALWAYS the best and most accurate source when it comes to the real world.

 

[All Becomes New]

Well for one, the Bible doesn't start out, ONCE UPON A TIME.

For another, Jesus took the Scriptures literally.

For another, the Bible almost always alerts us as to a vision, a parable, or a dream.

Not taking the Bible literally can lead to some dire consequences.

What about hermeneutics?

 

[sjastro]

Here's a point I made to Estrid last month.

Do you mind commenting on it?

"That's because science stretches the timeline from 6000 to 13,700,000,000, then claims things didn't exist together.
It would be like stretching your street from 1 mile to 2.3 million miles, then claiming you don't have any neighbors."

So lets get this right you are 67 years old which is your stretched age.
By my calculations this makes you no older than 15 minutes.
Well I suppose that explains why many of your posts come across as very immature.