Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

ok, so not everything in the Bible or even what Jesus says is to be taken literally?

That is correct.

The Bible, as a whole, is to be taken literally, because It is more literal than allegory and hyperbole combined.

On the other hand, if It was more allegory than literal and hyperbole combined, then you take It allegorically.

Ditto for hyperbole.

And in case you didn't know it, I take Jesus' parables literally.

 

[driewerf]

doubtingmerle said:
The rock layers down there have clear indication that they have been undergoing radioactive decay for millions of years

Only on paper.

No. Not on paper. In the rocks.
If you don't know the difference between paper and rock, I suggest you play rock scissors paper.

 

[driewerf]

"Baked" is the key word though, isn't it?

If God created 5000 loaves of nice warm raisin bread, like He did in Bethsaida, to feed 5000 starving Hindu families, would you accuse Him of deceit?

You can't spot the raisins in raisin bread?

Raisins ... you know ... mature grapes, but without a history?

Only in your fictional scenarios that have no relationship with reality. Only in your challenge threads.
You confuse reality with fiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only in your fictional scenarios that have no relationship with reality. Only in your challenge threads.
You confuse reality with fiction.

Stuff like this is why you should never go outside of Genesis 1 & 2 in discussing Creationism, or the thread is over.

People will want to talk about everything BUT the Creation Week.

The Fall, the Flood, the Exodus -- anything but.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That is correct.

The Bible, as a whole, is to be taken literally, because It is more literal than allegory and hyperbole combined.

On the other hand, if It was more allegory than literal and hyperbole combined, then you take It allegorically.

Ditto for hyperbole.

And in case you didn't know it, I take Jesus' parables literally.

"The Bible, as a whole" by that I take you mean there are some exceptions such as allegory and hyperbole.

And yet you take Genesis literally to accommodate the absurd notion of Embedded age creation?

You take Jesus' parables literally? As in there rally was a historical woman who lost a coin and swept her house for it? A man who built bigger barns and died before using them? A prodigal son and forgiving father? Laborers getting same pay for shorter hours work? Foolish virgins?

 

[dlamberth]

Stuff like this is why you should never go outside of Genesis 1 & 2 in discussing Creationism, or the thread is over.

People will want to talk about everything BUT the Creation Week.

The Fall, the Flood, the Exodus -- anything but.

It could be because there's zero evidence of said week. In fact, God's own Creation is showing us that Truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

"The Bible, as a whole" by that I take you mean there are some exceptions such as allegory and hyperbole.

That is correct.

And in almost every incident, the reader is alerted to it being a dream, or vision, or whatever.

And yet you take Genesis literally to accommodate the absurd notion of Embedded age creation?

No.

I take Genesis literally to accommodate the fact of what happened in 4004 BC.

You take Jesus' parables literally?

Yes.

As in there rally was a historical woman who lost a coin and swept her house for it?

Yes.

A man who built bigger barns and died before using them?

Yes.

A prodigal son and forgiving father?

Yes.

Laborers getting same pay for shorter hours work?

Yes.

Foolish virgins?

Yes.

(And don't forget the "eye of the needle" story.)

Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

It could be because there's zero evidence of said week.

So you need evidence to discuss it?

In fact, God's own Creation is showing us that Truth.

That science can take a hike?

 

[dlamberth]

So you need evidence to discuss it?

Can it be discussed with out all of the mumbo jumbo that seems to accompany it?

That science can take a hike?

Science has opened a window into how God Creates. In that way science is a blessing from God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has opened a window into how God Creates.

Then why do most scientists not believe in Him?

 

[dlamberth]

Then why do most scientists not believe in Him?

I don't know that.
Maybe not the way you do?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then why do most scientists not believe in Him?

Got any evidence of that claim?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I take Genesis literally to accommodate the fact of what happened in 4004 BC.

Well, come now. It s not a fact at all. It is your eccentric belief.
Aside from the Genesis account is there any other compelling reason to believe that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Aside from the Genesis account is there any other compelling reason to believe that?

Peter's account.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Peter's account.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Did you read the commentary of your own source?

3:5 the earth held together out of water A reference to Gen 1:9–10, where dry land emerges from the waters, which in the ancient worldview, now surround the land (with water above the sky, below the land, and beside the land). This description reflects common A theory or worldview concerned with describing the origin and structure of the universe.



by the word of God The scoffers are claiming that Jesus’ return will not come to pass because, in their limited perspective, things have essentially been the same since creation. Peter counters the argument of the scoffers by claiming that the world came into being by God’s word (see Gen 1:3 and note; Heb 11:3) and God has continued to speak since that time.


So you subscribe the the ancient Hebrew worldview.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Peter's account.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Uh huh, and how do you know that the real KJV did not say something different, and God has somehow scrambled the letters in the transmission to you? How do you know that the original, authorized, infallible KJV did not say, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were created 13.8 billion years ago, and the Earth consolidated into existence 4.5 billion years ago?" Could it be that after originally writing that, God scrambled the letters in the transmission so you read something different?

After all, your words indicate that God took all those bones lying around after the Flood, and somehow transported them through solid rock, often thousands of feet deep, such that each ended up in a layer that is consistent with an evolutionary scenario. If your God is able to do that to fossils, how do you know he is not able to do that with letters? For if your God specifically arranged the fossils in an order that would fool Doubtingmerle, Akita, Hans, Estrid, Dlamberth and others into thinking that animal life changed with time over millions of years as shown in the rocks, how do you know God did not specifically rearrange the letters of the KJV such that they fooled AV1611VET into thinking the Earth began in 4004 BC?

 

[dlamberth]

Uh huh, and how do you know that the real KJV did not say something different, and God has somehow scrambled the letters in the transmission to you? How do you know that the original, authorized, infallible KJV did not say, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were created 13.8 billion years ago, and the Earth consolidated into existence 4.5 billion years ago?" Could it be that after originally writing that, God scrambled the letters in the transmission so you read something different?

After all, your words indicate that God took all those bones lying around after the Flood, and somehow transported them through solid rock, often thousands of feet deep, such that each ended up in a layer that is consistent with an evolutionary scenario. If your God is able to do that to fossils, how do you know he is not able to do that with letters? For if your God specifically arranged the fossils in an order that would fool Doubtingmerle, Akita, Hans, Estrid, Dlamberth and others into thinking that animal life changed with time over millions of years as shown in the rocks, how do you know God did not specifically rearrange the letters of the KJV such that they fooled AV1611VET into thinking the Earth began in 4004 BC?

Just a little FYI: The Bible was written in Early Modern English. I'm not sure but if I remember correctly, AV uses the term Jacobean English? Where it matters in your reply is that AV believes this is also the language that Adam and Eve spoke. Thus being the language of God, the Bible is infallible and the direct words of God. Do I have that right, AV?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Just a little FYI: The Bible was written in Early Modern English. I'm not sure but if I remember correctly, AV uses the term Jacobean English? Where it matters in your reply is that AV believes this is also the language that Adam and Eve spoke. Thus being the language of God, the Bible is infallible and the direct words of God. Do I have that right, AV?

Yes, I understand that AV thinks God gave his infallible Bible in English. I certainly dispute that, but this would not be the proper forum to challenge him on that point.

So, for the sake of argument, I deal with the hypothetical case in which God had delivered his perfect word in Jacobean English. So what. If God is in the process of deliberately embedding fossils in thousands of feet of solid rock, knowing that the overwhelming scientific consensus would see this and be fooled by this to say that these rocks are evidence of an old Earth and evolution, how would AV know that this same God had not later rearranged the letters in his perfect KJV Bible in a way that God knows would deceive him?

If we accept that God acted in the deceptive way AV suggests, how would any of us know anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just a little FYI: The Bible was written in Early Modern English. I'm not sure but if I remember correctly, AV uses the term Jacobean English? Where it matters in your reply is that AV believes this is also the language that Adam and Eve spoke. Thus being the language of God, the Bible is infallible and the direct words of God. Do I have that right, AV?

Yes, indeed, Lamb.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we accept that God acted in the deceptive way AV suggests, how would any of us know anything?

I hope you soon realize that I'm done responding to you.

And any smart-aleck comeback you deem necessary to come back with, I'll gladly accept.

You need help.