Interesting serious starting on PT

[Jedidiah]

[I]As for answering your last two questions :
I don't know enough about your specific beliefs to give you an full, accurate answer.
What little I do know is that you embrace and advocate gigayears - right?
With this, you deny the biblical chronology and advance the Materialistic chronology.
Now, pardon me but if that isn't "allying with the Materialists" then perhaps my
understanding of the English language isn't as solid as I had thought.
NOTE: I had also said unwittingly/unknowingly - IOW, I am not saying that you
are assisting these people on purpose. But assisting them you are.
That's just one area - I'd need to learn more to speak any further.

I believe that God created all the discoverable universe. I believe that He did not place any tricks in the evidence we might find. We can trust what He reveals to us through examination of the universe. For this I am deemed by you to be assisting atheists? If that is the case too bad for you. No skin off my nose. I still serve a risen Savior. Trust the Bible not some legalistic interpretation of it. Nor do I deny the Biblical chronology. Over and out.

[Jorge]

I believe that God created all the discoverable universe. I believe that He did not place any tricks in the evidence we might find. We can trust what He reveals to us through examination of the universe. For this I am deemed by you to be assisting atheists? If that is the case too bad for you. No skin off my nose. I still serve a risen Savior. Trust the Bible not some legalistic interpretation of it. Nor do I deny the Biblical chronology. Over and out.

You've just proven one of my points - you are unaware of what you are doing.

I agree - God did not place any tricks in the evidence we might find.
Nor will I doubt that you serve a risen Savior (aside from the fact that it's not my call anyway).

What I will ask you to meditate on is your last claim - that you do not deny the biblical chronology. It's quite simple, Jedidiah: you cannot promote gigayears WITHOUT denying the biblical chronology because the two accounts are mutually exclusive. I'll not twist your arm off on this matter, just think about it, research some more and ask God for direction. I'm quite sure that you'll come to the answer.

Jorge

[rwatts]

The above has earned you the grade of F-minus on Basic Theology and Science.

Jorge

Roland delivers the death blow to Jorge. But Jorge maintains his zombie stance.

Without going into a rant, can you demonstrate why my argument was incorrect Jorge. You cannot escape the fact that the Bible tells you that rain and babies have supernatural, not natural causes. Yet you accommodate this literal word of the Bible with the fallible meteorological and embryological theories of man. If you do it for these sciences, then why not for biology?

Naturally, you have never been able to address this question in a coherent and consistent manner, other than by handwaving in poetry, fact, metaphor, imagery, literal truth - but not explaining how you distribute these classifications amongst the various Bible verses.

[oxmixmudd]

Roland delivers the death blow to Jorge. But Jorge maintains his zombie stance.

Without going into a rant, can you demonstrate why my argument was incorrect Jorge. You cannot escape the fact that the Bible tells you that rain and babies have supernatural, not natural causes. Yet you accommodate this literal word of the Bible with the fallible meteorological and embryological theories of man. If you do it for these sciences, then why not for biology?

Naturally, you have never been able to address this question in a coherent and consistent manner, other than by handwaving in poetry, fact, metaphor, imagery, literal truth - but not explaining how you distribute these classifications amongst the various Bible verses.

But Roland, you don't understand. It's just different.

[Jedidiah]

What I will ask you to meditate on is your last claim - that you do not deny the biblical chronology. It's quite simple, Jedidiah: you cannot promote gigayears WITHOUT denying the biblical chronology because the two accounts are mutually exclusive. I'll not twist your arm off on this matter, just think about it, research some more and ask God for direction. I'm quite sure that you'll come to the answer.

I have spent much thought and prayer on this subject and have come to a sound Biblical conclusion. You are just wrong. But continue as you were.

[rwatts]

But Roland, you don't understand. It's just different.

Is that in the same way that Jorge and Jorge are different?

[Jorge]

Roland delivers the death blow to Jorge. But Jorge maintains his zombie stance.

Without going into a rant, can you demonstrate why my argument was incorrect Jorge. You cannot escape the fact that the Bible tells you that rain and babies have supernatural, not natural causes. Yet you accommodate this literal word of the Bible with the fallible meteorological and embryological theories of man. If you do it for these sciences, then why not for biology?

Naturally, you have never been able to address this question in a coherent and consistent manner, other than by handwaving in poetry, fact, metaphor, imagery, literal truth - but not explaining how you distribute these classifications amongst the various Bible verses.

The (many) times in the past when I attempted what you imply I've never done, what I found myself doing was talking at a sack of hammers (namely, you). I do not mean that in an impolite, insulting sense. I mean that what I got from you was the same that I would have gotten had I been talking to a sack filled with hammers. Even I - slow to react as I may sometimes be - eventually realized that I was wasting my time.

So go on with your claims, Roland. I know the truth and God knows the truth ... your opinion matters nothing just as that of your ideological allies (like O-Mudd) matters nothing. If it warms your bagel, go ahead and say whatever you wish.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I have spent much thought and prayer on this subject and have come to a sound Biblical conclusion. You are just wrong. But continue as you were.

Golly gee wiz ... I TOO have spent much thought and prayer on this subject.
We thus seem to be at an impasse. Nah, not really, here's the thing ...

... unless you wish to deny the obvious, you have to accept that you stand on exactly the same ground as Materialists (Atheists and Humanists) on the matter of the age of the universe and the Earth. They flat-out oppose the biblical chronology. You also 'oppose' (by not accepting) the biblical chronology.

As politely as I can say it, you cannot have it both ways and are living either in ignorance or self-deception if you believe otherwise. Just one example to make that point concrete: the gigayear chronology has stars appearing billions of years before planets could have appeared (since the material to make planets was fabricated in the interiors of stars). Yet the biblical chronology has the Earth appearing first (Day 1) and the stars appearing later (Day 4). Not only are there billions of years separating the two accounts (a quantity conflict), the order of events is REVERSED (a quality conflict).

That's just one of many conflicts between the Bible's chronology and that of gigayears.
As I've said before, you can have one or the other, but you can't have both - don't delude yourself.

Is it possible to distort the plain, direct reading of the Bible so as to force-fit gigayears into Scripture? Yes, of course, and many folk have done precisely that. Just as long as they recognize and openly admit that this is what they've done then so be it. But to claim otherwise is to be living in denial.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Jorge,

Ge 1:2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Apparently Earth didn't exist as a planetary body on the "evening" of the first day. (Why would the first day start with "evening" -- what was before that?)

But, of course I can't get Jorge to give his plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal reading of this. So it remains on open question in Jorgian YEC.

Or maybe he just won't tell us because we're not worthy...???

BTW, I wonder in what sense evening and morning are global markers of a day? I'm sure the anointed one has a plain, simple, blah, blah, blah answer to that as well.

K54

P.S. You know, and I'm not a concordist by any stretch of the imagination, but verse 2 kinda smacks of a proto-planet in a forming star system. If I WERE a hard-nosed literalist, that would make more sense to me.

[Leonhard]

Jorge, at the old tweb 98% of your posts consisted of you either criticizing people, or referring to arguments you had already made elsewhere.

Unfortunately you rarely/never provided any links to these winning posts. Though I remember spending two hours slowly backtracking through your posting history. While I remember finding some arguments I don't think I ever got to the good stuff.

Now that the old tweb has died, I think its silly for you to pronounce victory on account of posts I could never find despite a decent amount of searching, and no one can ever check now because of lost archives.

Basically start arguing Jorge, because you're turning into a NatSci troll.

So far the only two points you've raised in this thread are:

1. Modern scientists use methodological naturalism, which is at odds with Christianity.
2. Christians who accept gigayears will have to accept that they agree with the atheists on this.

My response to 1. Is that even from a Christian perspective I can't see what would change. I don't deny the creation of Adam and Eve, the Fall, or their lines of descendants. Many other details are up for personal interpretation. No one will be held accountable for failing to be a yec or a gigayearist.

To 2. I'll simple say, so what? There's tons of stuff you agree with atheists on Jorge and it doesn't bother you. Do you reject the existence of the Moon because most atheists believe it exists? Do you renounce the false doctrine of truth and logic because most atheists support these notions? If you meant something else with the argument, then I'm simple dense and misread you. I'm just going by the plain reading of you as far as I can see.

The counter cultural challenge of Christianity isn't "the world is young", its "Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was raised after the third day and ascended into Heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father. If you repent, become baptized, believe in Him and take up your own cross you will be saved".

[Jedidiah]

As politely as I can say it, you cannot have it both ways and are living either in ignorance or self-deception if you believe otherwise. Just one example to make that point concrete: the gigayear chronology has stars appearing billions of years before planets could have appeared (since the material to make planets was fabricated in the interiors of stars). Yet the biblical chronology has the Earth appearing first (Day 1) and the stars appearing later (Day 4). Not only are there billions of years separating the two accounts (a quantity conflict), the order of events is REVERSED (a quality conflict).

That's just one of many conflicts between the Bible's chronology and that of gigayears.
As I've said before, you can have one or the other, but you can't have both - don't delude yourself.

It is interesting that Gleason Archer, an Old Testament scholar (probably not respected among YEC because he goes where the Bible takes him, not where YEC folks want to go.) who said that you can either have inerrant Bible or Young Earth, but not both. So perhaps you are the one who can not have it both ways. Genesis is not the only place Archer got information on creation, there are a number of other scriptures that speak to it. I prefer to trust the Bible rather than a certain YEC misinterpretation. Don't delude yourself.

So we are definitely at an impasse.

[Jorge]

It is interesting that Gleason Archer, an Old Testament scholar (probably not respected among YEC because he goes where the Bible takes him, not where YEC folks want to go.) who said that you can either have inerrant Bible or Young Earth, but not both. So perhaps you are the one who can not have it both ways. Genesis is not the only place Archer got information on creation, there are a number of other scriptures that speak to it. I prefer to trust the Bible rather than a certain YEC misinterpretation. Don't delude yourself.

So we are definitely at an impasse.

No problem - can't say I didn't try.

Noted, however, that you had no response for the one example (Earth-stars v. stars-Earth) that I provided - and that was just one. As for G. Archer, there are many (many!) "respected" Christians that have capitulated on this age issue (and on Evolution as well). My favorite example will always be Charles Templeton - once a super-evangelist that came to accept gigayears and this led him to Atheism. His final book Farewell to God, tells of his journey. At some point he realized that you cannot have it both ways and, sadly, he chose to go with the gigayears option.

Keep praying and thinking about this ... God willing, it'll come.

Jorge

[klaus54]

No problem - can't say I didn't try.

Noted, however, that you had no response for the one example (Earth-stars v. stars-Earth) that I provided - and that was just one. As for G. Archer, there are many (many!) "respected" Christians that have capitulated on this age issue (and on Evolution as well). My favorite example will always be Charles Templeton - once a super-evangelist that came to accept gigayears and this led him to Atheism. His final book Farewell to God, tells of his journey. At some point he realized that you cannot have it both ways and, sadly, he chose to go with the gigayears option.

Keep praying and thinking about this ... God willing, it'll come.

Jorge

Could you explain this again, please?

K54

[Jorge]

Jorge, at the old tweb 98% of your posts consisted of you either criticizing people, or referring to arguments you had already made elsewhere.

You are presenting a distorted, inaccurate, highly prejudicial picture here ... whatever.

Unfortunately you rarely/never provided any links to these winning posts. Though I remember spending two hours slowly backtracking through your posting history. While I remember finding some arguments I don't think I ever got to the good stuff.

DITTO.

Now that the old tweb has died, I think its silly for you to pronounce victory on account of posts I could never find despite a decent amount of searching, and no one can ever check now because of lost archives.

I don't recall recently having sent you to "find past posts".
Besides, "distorted, inaccurate, highly prejudicial picture" continues to apply.

Basically start arguing Jorge, because you're turning into a NatSci troll.

I will "argue" where merited. You're not off to a good start, Leonhard.
But let's let that slide and see what you have ...

So far the only two points you've raised in this thread are:

1. Modern scientists use methodological naturalism, which is at odds with Christianity.
2. Christians who accept gigayears will have to accept that they agree with the atheists on this.

I would not agree with 1 as it is worded. My claim is that MN is unnecessary for the Christian. I personally have never been founded on MN when I've practiced science (operational or historical). MN is actually the working version of Philosophical Naturalism and that's where Christians have been conned (with great subtlety).

As for 2, that is an obvious fact. The Atheist position absolutely must have gigayears. Take away the gigayears and how would the Atheist worldview remain? Where's the time for stellar evolution? For nucleosynthesis? For planetary formation? For goo-to-zoo Evolution? The Atheist MUST have gigayears. Christians who accept and promote gigayears are, therefore, agreeing with Atheists on this point, i.e., on the length of time that the universe and Earth have existed. That seems to be perfectly obvious to me.

My response to 1. Is that even from a Christian perspective I can't see what would change. I don't deny the creation of Adam and Eve, the Fall, or their lines of descendants. Many other details are up for personal interpretation. No one will be held accountable for failing to be a yec or a gigayearist.

Perhaps you missed the many (many!) times in the past where I stated that it's NOT about failing to be a YEC. God, I'd expect, wouldn't care at all about that. What God WOULD care about - and I'd love to hear if you agree or not - is if you are trusting in Him / His Word or, if in essence, you are doubting His Word (maybe even calling God a "liar") just so that the words, theories and vain imaginations of men may remain standing. But there's more...

... it's not ONLY about the age of the Earth being 10,000 years or 4.5 billion years or 2 microseconds or 26 trillion years - God is not limited by time. What DOES matter is that God gave us His Word and that Word tells us about the beginning, an END, and what happened-happens in between (sin ... the Fall ... and God's plan for redeeming us from eternal death). Eliminate 10,000 years (whatever the exact number is) and introduce 4.5 billion years in which pain, suffering and death occurred throughout and what results is that what God has said throughout the Bible becomes incoherent.

To wit: why would God want to redeem us from death if death is a 'good' thing? (since death was the mechanism that He used to bring man from the "earlier, lower species"). Why would God call His creation "very good" if it had pain, suffering and death from the very moment that life began hundreds of millions of years ago? Why would God painstakingly provide us with chronological and genealogical details since Adam and Eve only to leave billions of years and thousands of human generations (before Adam and Eve) unaccounted for? These are just a few of hundreds of logical paradoxes that billions of years would introduce into the Bible.

In case you don't know, why else do you think that many Christian gigayear/Evolution-promoters have essentially 'eliminated' Genesis 1-11 from their Bible? (note the quotes). I'll tell you why: because by doing so they erase all of these embarrassing (for them) questions for which they have no good, honest answers.

To 2. I'll simple say, so what? There's tons of stuff you agree with atheists on Jorge and it doesn't bother you. Do you reject the existence of the Moon because most atheists believe it exists? Do you renounce the false doctrine of truth and logic because most atheists support these notions? If you meant something else with the argument, then I'm simple dense and misread you. I'm just going by the plain reading of you as far as I can see.

That's silly, Leonhard. Yes, I do agree with Atheists that 2+4=6 and that lead is denser than aluminum. But those matters do NOT impact God's Word or the Christian faith. But when an Atheist says, "The Bible must be wrong because the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands" - that Atheist has just called God a liar (after all, it was GOD that gave Moses the Words that are found in Genesis). And if I agree with this Atheist then what have I just done? Answer that - it's easy.

The counter cultural challenge of Christianity isn't "the world is young", its "Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was raised after the third day and ascended into Heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father. If you repent, become baptized, believe in Him and take up your own cross you will be saved".

I agree wholeheartedly that the MOST important thing in Christianity is Christ, the Cross and our relationship with God. But it is childishly naive to think that one facet of our Christian faith is isolated from all others. A Christian would never vote FOR "the right to have an abortion", right? Why? A Christian would never vote FOR the validity of same-sex marriage, right? Why? A Christian would never vote in FAVOR of adultery or illegally taking someone's property, right? Why? Hey, if all that matters is that Christ died for me and that I'm going to heaven then the hell with everything else - just allow all things to happen regardless of what the Bible says. Obviously, that's not right. Agreed?

EVERY aspect of our life must be viewed within the context of God's Word. Compartmentalization isn't allowed. God is LORD of all areas, not just the area of grace and spiritual salvation. So we must see the interconnectedness of what we believe - how believing in one thing impacts another.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Could you explain this again, please?

K54

Explain "again"? I did not "explain" it the first time, I merely stated it.

It needs no "explanation" as it is plain, literal narrative.

Oops, I forgot, my bad ... you people are impaired when plain, literal narrative is involved.

I'll just post it again - maybe plain, literal narrative becomes easier the second time around.

Just one example to make that point concrete: the gigayear chronology has stars appearing billions of years before planets could have appeared (since the material to make planets was fabricated in the interiors of stars). Yet the biblical chronology has the Earth appearing first (Day 1) and the stars appearing later (Day 4). Not only are there billions of years separating the two accounts (a quantity conflict), the order of events is REVERSED (a quality conflict).

That's just one of many conflicts between the Bible's chronology and that of gigayears.

Jorge