What's wrong with evolution?

[theFijian]

Yup --- then we'd all be arguing on here why the Earth looks 6000 years, when in fact, it's 4.5 billion.

We could call it --- Next Thursdayism.

No you're getting yuorself confused. If I created it 6k years ago it would look 6k years old. There would be no 4.5 billion years about it.

But if i created it 4.5 billion years ago it would look 4.5 billions years ago. Do you understand now?

 

[theFijian]

so long as it doesn't conflict the the KJV.

Just so others are aware, AV takes the KJV as more authoritative than the original hebrew and greek manuscripts. This is what is called Bibliolatry and is generally held (apart from among fringe fundamentalists) to be heretical.

 

[AV1611VET]

No you're getting yuorself confused. If I created it 6k years ago it would look 6k years old. There would be no 4.5 billion years about it.

But if i created it 4.5 billion years ago it would look 4.5 billions years ago. Do you understand now?

If you created it 6000 years ago, and it looked 6000 years old, then it would look 12,000 years old today.

What's the difference --- you embedded 6000 years into it --- yet God can't?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just so others are aware, AV takes the KJV as more authoritative than the original hebrew and greek manuscripts. This is what is called Bibliolatry and is generally held (apart from among fringe fundamentalists) to be heretical.

Fijan, I'm going to have to ask you to stop with that accusation. In no way, shape, or form do I do that; and I've even challenged others to produce one post where I have made that claim.

Let's dispense with the childishness, okay?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Fijan, I'm going to have to ask you to stop with that accusation. In no way, shape, or form do I do that; and I've even challenged others to produce one post where I have made that claim.

Let's dispense with the childishness, okay?

Have you read your own sig? Can you read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? If not, and if there are discrepancies (hint: I'd bet everything I owned there are), then you would in fact be saying that the KJV is more authoritative than the originals, yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you read your own sig? Can you read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? If not, and if there are discrepancies (hint: I'd bet everything I owned there are), then you would in fact be saying that the KJV is more authoritative than the originals, yes?

Absolutely not --- for the same reason I believe the King James Bible to be the authorized version for today, I believe the Hebrew Scriptures to be the authorized version for their day.

Here's the line, in case yo missed it before:

• AD 96 --- completed Scriptures
• AV100 Koine Version
• AV350 Gothic Version
• AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
• AV1389 Wycliffe Version
• AV1530 Tyndale Version
• AV1560 Geneva Bible
• AV1568 Bishops' Bible
• AV1611 King James Version

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Absolutely not --- for the same reason I believe the King James Bible to be the authorized version for today, I believe the Hebrew Scriptures to be the authorized version for their day.

Here's the line, in case yo missed it before:

• AD 96 --- completed Scriptures
• AV100 Koine Version
• AV350 Gothic Version
• AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
• AV1389 Wycliffe Version
• AV1530 Tyndale Version
• AV1560 Geneva Bible
• AV1568 Bishops' Bible
• AV1611 King James Version

Soooo....

1) The Bible changes over time in that who, where, and when any given version is "authoritative"?

2) English has changed quite a bit since the KJV, what makes that English better than todays?

3) What about all the other devout Christians in the world who are not reading English versions of the Bible? They are not reading the "authoritive" version? Should they learn English or Latin or Greek or Spanish....?

4) Have you personally ever done anything in translation, or even in transcription? And, what languages can you speak/read?

 

[shernren]

Fijan, I'm going to have to ask you to stop with that accusation. In no way, shape, or form do I do that; and I've even challenged others to produce one post where I have made that claim.

Let's dispense with the childishness, okay?

Over in OT where we started talking about "yom" one day , you mentioned "Why should I bother with the Hebrew when I have the AV?"

If that's not exalting the KJV translation over the original manuscripts and original languages I don't know what is.

 

[Psudopod]

If you created it 6000 years ago, and it looked 6000 years old, then it would look 12,000 years old today.

What's the difference --- you embedded 6000 years into it --- yet God can't?

I think you miss understood him. He was saying if you create something 6000 years ago it will be 6000 years old today.

Anyway, embedded age is one thing, embedded hsitory is another. It's one thing to create your first living thing as a mature adult capable of breeding. Its another to create him with 20 years of memory, an appendictomy scar and a strong dislike of bananas because they made him puke once.

Same thing goes for the earth and the universe.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Is God alive?

yes. Jesus, the man... was cellular life.

Does pi=3?

No.

Pi>3 yes

pi between 3.0 and 3.2

yes

but anyway you read that passage... its saying that the circumference of the molten sea is 3 times the diametre of the molten sea AND round... which just doesn't work.

Unless you are suggesting that the physical laws have changed?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But Angels arent alive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Soooo....

1) The Bible changes over time in that who, where, and when any given version is "authoritative"?

I'm sorry, Scotty, was this a complete sentence? I have no idea what you just said.

2) English has changed quite a bit since the KJV, what makes that English better than todays?

Where did I say one English was better than another?

3) What about all the other devout Christians in the world who are not reading English versions of the Bible? They are not reading the "authoritive" version? Should they learn English or Latin or Greek or Spanish....?[/quote]

Nope --- we need to translate the KJV into their language the best we can, with God's help.

4) Have you personally ever done anything in translation, or even in transcription? And, what languages can you speak/read?

Translation --- no; transcription --- yes; foreign languages --- none.

I'm English only.

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but let me make a couple of points I've made before:

1) I don't care if I speak 8 different languages fluently, the KJV is, so far, the latest supernatural version out.

2) If someone found the book of Galatians, written in Paul's own handwriting, and brought it to me, I would just shrug my shoulders and say, "I've already read it".

 

[AV1611VET]

Over in OT where we started talking about "yom" one day , you mentioned "Why should I bother with the Hebrew when I have the AV?"

Well --- why should I?

If I go into a Greek restaurant, I'll take the English menu over the Greek menu any day. Not because the English menu is more authoritative, but because the English menu is legible to me.

If that's not exalting the KJV translation over the original manuscripts and original languages I don't know what is.

There's a difference between a vertical promotion and a horizontal promotion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway, embedded age is one thing, embedded hsitory is another.

I've never heard of "embedded history" until I came here. I don't know of anyone who believes that.

I'm not sure why God would embed history into something. Does this have Scriptural support?

 

[birdan]

I've never heard of "embedded history" until I came here. I don't know of anyone who believes that.

I'm not sure why God would embed history into something. Does this have Scriptural support?

I don't know if embedded history has scriptual origins. As far as I know it's only your construct. You have said that a 6,000 yo earth looks like it is over 4 billion years old. There is physical evidence for a very old earth - meteor craters, radioactive decay, erosion, plate tectonics, miles of sedimentary layers, fossils, etc. Thus by your definition, the earth was not only made to look old 6,000 years ago, but also made to have a 4 billion year history embedded within it.

Scriptures or not, the physical evidence for a 4 billion year old earth is there. It is precisely this embedded history that leads to that age estimation. Why indeed would God embed history into something?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know if embedded history has scriptual origins. As far as I know it's only your construct.

I thought you guys swore I was a YEC???

You have said that a 6,000 yo earth looks like it is over 4 billion years old.

I have never, never, never, no, never, never, ever said this Earth is 6000 years old (unless it was a typo).

For about the 303rd time:

This earth is 4.5 billion years old (or so).

There is physical evidence for a very old earth - meteor craters, radioactive decay, erosion, plate tectonics, miles of sedimentary layers, fossils, etc.

Which, in my opinion, can be explained by a global flood.

Thus by your definition, the earth was not only made to look old 6,000 years ago...

Now you got it!

...but also made to have a 4 billion year history embedded within it.

I disagree with this. Like I said, I never heard of the theory of embedded history.

Scriptures or not, the physical evidence for a 4 billion year old earth is there.

Well, since it is 4.5 billion years old, I would tend to agree. Radiometric dating, I believe confirms this.

It is precisely this embedded history that leads to that age estimation.

Please tell me what "embedded history" is. I Googled it and Wikipediad it, and found nothing.

Like I said, I'm 52 years old, and despite all the studying and schooling I've had, I've never heard that term used.

 

[Tomk80]

Where does "deception" come in? The earth He created is just as old as it looks. I don't get it. You guys are the ones who are trying to separate apparent age from exact age, not I.

Had God placed Adam and Eve on a 6000-year-old Earth, so as not to supposedly deceive them, then they, in my opinion, wouldn't have been able to survive.

In the fact that we not only see an 'age', but also seeing a history of 4.5 billion years old that matches up around the world.

See AV, you continuously pretend that it is solely the old look of the earth, and if that would be true, I could even agree. But the fact is that we see a history in the earth that is 4.5 billion years long but, if you were correct, would have never happened. It would be like creating a mature Adam with a childhood memory.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It would be like creating a mature Adam with a childhood memory.

a memory from a fall from a tree at 11 with a scar on his knee for physical evidence. i like to think of this as an internal label, a note that substantiates history.

sort of like a label on the wine at Cana, made in Josh ben Judah's vineyard, in the high priest Joshua reign year 4, grown from grapes on the south slope of Mt Oram stomped on by Peter the bigfoot and carefully aged in fine Lebanonese cedar casks......

 

[Tomk80]

I thought you guys swore I was a YEC???

You are.

I have never, never, never, no, never, never, ever said this Earth is 6000 years old (unless it was a typo).

For about the 303rd time:

This earth is 4.5 billion years old (or so).

Sorry, but if the earth has existed for 6000 years, it is also 6000 years old. Period.

Which, in my opinion, can be explained by a global flood.

And your opinion is wrong.

Now you got it!

I disagree with this. Like I said, I never heard of the theory of embedded history.

It is your only recourse.

Well, since it is 4.5 billion years old, I would tend to agree. Radiometric dating, I believe confirms this.

Please tell me what "embedded history" is. I Googled it and Wikipediad it, and found nothing.

Like I said, I'm 52 years old, and despite all the studying and schooling I've had, I've never heard that term used.

Nobody said you had. The point is that you not only need to explain that the earth has an age of 4.5 billion years old, but that it also has a history of 4.5 billion years showing, that cannot be explained by a global flood (especially since the traces left by this history expressely contradict a global flood).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

and if the Global flood were what happened... why arent there Kangaroos in Egypt?