Interesting serious starting on PT

[HMS_Beagle]

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

Jorge is right. The actual quantity of his fact-free insult posts on the old TWeb was more like 99.9%.

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.

That's because you're a scientifically illiterate idiot. Science didn't invent "gigayears", science observed evidence for "gigayears" as part of empirically verified reality. Just like we have 3+ billions years worth of evidence for life on Earth, and 600+ million years of multicellular life. All as part of empirically observed reality, that thing you have only the faintest connection to.

[HMS_Beagle]

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

Since you're a proven liar with a history of merely stating idiotic and untrue things, "Jorge said so" carries less than zero weight.

[klaus54]

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

Most stars ARE much older than Earth, and that's about as solid of scientific knowledge there is. Are you denying that many stars and ALL galaxies are MUCH further away than 10,000 light-years?!?

If so, wow -- just wow! You are twisting truth SO much to fit your Genesis 1 interpreta... err.. reading. Which, BTW, you cannot expound in a unambiguous, plain, simple, clear, literal manner.

You are a disgrace to Christendom, my lost friend.

K54

[klaus54]

To explain mega- and giga- light years, I'm expecting Jorge to barf up either 1) Humphreys' White Hole garbage, or 2) Setterfield's "da speed o' light done changed" mythology.

Or maybe both?

Whadda y'all think? Should we wager?

K54

[Jedidiah]

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

God has been working on me for over 40 years so I will continue to wait on Him.

[oxmixmudd]

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

Only if one ignores the hymn like structure and parallelism of creating and filling. Those nasty literary and cultural things that always complicate things so. Oh, and don't forget the firmament which holds the sun and stars but has a heavenly sea of water above it and windows or sluices to let down the waters of the flood. It's amazing how when you ignore all the clues about how this text should be read that one ends up in a paradoxical situation.

As for the 'hard' question you ask. Again, is the text allegorical writing or literal writing. How does one determine what kind of writing a text is? Jorge doesn't take huge quantities of scripture literally because his knowledge of the universe tells him that is a mistake. He even does it as relates to elements in THIS PASSAGE. But not time. Nope, he ignores ALL the clues on that one. But it makes a huge difference how much of a problem there is depending on those pesky complicating factors Jorge would rather pretend don't exist.

Jim

[Omniskeptical]

Only if one ignores the hymn like structure and parallelism of creating and filling. Those nasty literary and cultural things that always complicate things so. Oh, and don't forget the firmament which holds the sun and stars but has a heavenly sea of water above it and windows or sluices to let down the waters of the flood. It's amazing how when you ignore all the clues about how this text should be read that one ends up in a paradoxical situation.

As for the 'hard' question you ask. Again, is the text allegorical writing or literal writing. How does one determine what kind of writing a text is? Jorge doesn't take huge quantities of scripture literally because his knowledge of the universe tells him that is a mistake. He even does it as relates to elements in THIS PASSAGE. But not time. Nope, he ignores ALL the clues on that one. But it makes a huge difference how much of a problem there is depending on those pesky complicating factors Jorge would rather pretend don't exist.

Jim

Actually there were waters above it and below it.

[klaus54]

Only if one ignores the hymn like structure and parallelism of creating and filling. Those nasty literary and cultural things that always complicate things so. Oh, and don't forget the firmament which holds the sun and stars but has a heavenly sea of water above it and windows or sluices to let down the waters of the flood. It's amazing how when you ignore all the clues about how this text should be read that one ends up in a paradoxical situation.

As for the 'hard' question you ask. Again, is the text allegorical writing or literal writing. How does one determine what kind of writing a text is? Jorge doesn't take huge quantities of scripture literally because his knowledge of the universe tells him that is a mistake. He even does it as relates to elements in THIS PASSAGE. But not time. Nope, he ignores ALL the clues on that one. But it makes a huge difference how much of a problem there is depending on those pesky complicating factors Jorge would rather pretend don't exist.

Jim

The literary genre is interesting. There is initial emptiness and chaos. The six day structure fixes these. Days 1-3 involve separation and ordering. Days 3-6 involve filling the void.

The Noah Story appears to reverse those steps, modulo the sparing of a few birds, beasts, and humans.

This reading makes a lot more sense exegetically and doesn't require an ignorance of the astrophysics of the last 100 years.

But then a "literal" reading should be unambiguous. And the Bloviating One can't even get through verses 2 and 3.

I guess he's afraid if Ge 1:2-3 are ambiguous --- that they could be a different literary genre or just accommodation to ANE knowledge -- then where would the unambiguous part start? But he's too cowardly to take that stand.

Pitiful that...

K54

[klaus54]

Actually there were waters above it and below it.

Yes, there were.

And the ra'qia or stereoma separated them. A solid something is needed to hold up water above it, ergo the clear, plain, direct, literal reading of ra'qia is a solid structure. When viewed from the ground this thing is a phenomenon we still call "sky". And since the "sky" appears to meet the horizon in all directions, this "sky" appears to be a dome. When you're in the middle of big body of water or a Kansas wheat field, look for yourselves.

I wonder how Jorge will manage to argue against this plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal (as as a phenomenon) reading? I'm sure it will be entertaining to read.

K54

[Jorge]

Only if one ignores the hymn like structure and parallelism of creating and filling. Those nasty literary and cultural things that always complicate things so. Oh, and don't forget the firmament which holds the sun and stars but has a heavenly sea of water above it and windows or sluices to let down the waters of the flood. It's amazing how when you ignore all the clues about how this text should be read that one ends up in a paradoxical situation.

As for the 'hard' question you ask. Again, is the text allegorical writing or literal writing. How does one determine what kind of writing a text is? Jorge doesn't take huge quantities of scripture literally because his knowledge of the universe tells him that is a mistake. He even does it as relates to elements in THIS PASSAGE. But not time. Nope, he ignores ALL the clues on that one. But it makes a huge difference how much of a problem there is depending on those pesky complicating factors Jorge would rather pretend don't exist.

Jim

What little remaining respect for your integrity I had is very rapidly evaporating due to posts such as the one above, O-Mudd. You're actually getting worse with time. Are you by any chance spending more time with Atheists, Humanists and Hard-Core Theistic Evolutionists? That would account for your decay.

You KNOW - because I've been over this over a hundred times - that I have often stated that there is figurative-allegorical language all throughout Scripture and that includes Genesis. However, I've also stated that applying a time-tested, sound exegesis-hermeneutic allows us to discern what is going on 99.9% of the time (that's a figurative amount). Then, to top off your blatant dishonesty, you bring up ONCE AGAIN the "solid dome" argument, one that just recently I dispensed with for one of your ideological pals - 'Omega Red' or whatever he calls himself).

Good thing for you that you are able to do these things here with no risk of prison time.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Yes, there were.

And the ra'qia or stereoma separated them. A solid something is needed to hold up water above it, ergo the clear, plain, direct, literal reading of ra'qia is a solid structure. When viewed from the ground this thing is a phenomenon we still call "sky". And since the "sky" appears to meet the horizon in all directions, this "sky" appears to be a dome. When you're in the middle of big body of water or a Kansas wheat field, look for yourselves.

I wonder how Jorge will manage to argue against this plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal (as as a phenomenon) reading? I'm sure it will be entertaining to read.

K54

Apply a double-dose of my last post to yourself.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Apply a double-dose of my last post to yourself.

Jorge

Why, Jorge?

Does my post make too much sense?

I'm simply reading the Genesis 1 story in a plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal manner. And mine's even BETTER because it takes into account the available knowledge of the ANE Hebrew.

So, back to you. What's your plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal reading of Ge 1:2-3? Accretionary stage of planet formation? What?

Please be plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal in your explanation.

K54

[rogue06]

Hard-Core Theistic Evolutionists?



Good thing for you that you are able to do these things here with no risk of prison time.

Jorge's view of "Hard-Core Theistic Evolutionists"

smiley gangsta1.gifXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX smiley gangsta2.gif
Kenneth "Profezzor" Miller XXXX Francis "Test Tubes" Collins

[oxmixmudd]

What little remaining respect for your integrity I had is very rapidly evaporating due to posts such as the one above, O-Mudd. You're actually getting worse with time. Are you by any chance spending more time with Atheists, Humanists and Hard-Core Theistic Evolutionists? That would account for your decay.

You KNOW - because I've been over this over a hundred times - that I have often stated that there is figurative-allegorical language all throughout Scripture and that includes Genesis. However, I've also stated that applying a time-tested, sound exegesis-hermeneutic allows us to discern what is going on 99.9% of the time (that's a figurative amount). Then, to top off your blatant dishonesty, you bring up ONCE AGAIN the "solid dome" argument, one that just recently I dispensed with for one of your ideological pals - 'Omega Red' or whatever he calls himself).

Good thing for you that you are able to do these things here with no risk of prison time.

Jorge

What "time tested hermeneutic" ignores the plain meaning of the words themselves in context Jorge? raqia refers to a hard dome. Period. Just go see how it's used in Ezekiel. Try putting a Ruby throne on top of an open air expanse And why is it described as "like crystal".

Source: Ezekiel 1:22 NASV

Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse (raqia) like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads.

© Copyright Original Source

Who has ever described an empty void as having an 'awesome gleam of crystal'. And this raqia is 'spread out over their heads'

Whatever, what you do Jorge is CLAIM to be doing things the RIGHT way, but when all is said, that isn't what you do. What you really do is decide what you want to be true, and then after that the evidence means literally nothing. Zero. Zip.

The fact that Sagan's quote was used out of context to mean something that was the opposite of what he said? Means nothing. You won't even look!

The fact the Davies/Sarfati quote of Clark/Caswell was ripped out of context (whoever did the ripping) and used to mean literally the opposite of what it meant? Means nothing.

The fact that there is nothing whatsoever to justify rejecting the clear evidence the major buried craters on this planet where caused by massive asteroid impacts, or that the moon is scarred over its entire surface some time in the past? Means nothing.

I could go on and on Jorge. But you CLAIM to do sound exegesis. you CLAIM to use science to support your view. And you CLAIM to be eithical. But when the opportunity to BE honest in your assessment of the meaning if the Hebrew comes, you REFUSE. When the time comes to actually DISCUSS the evidence that back up your beliefs in a thread for that purpose, you PASS. And when it comes time to BE ethical and recognize your own mistakes and offer an apology, YOU DUCK AND RUN.



Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

What little remaining respect for your integrity I had is very rapidly evaporating due to posts such as the one above, O-Mudd. You're actually getting worse with time. Are you by any chance spending more time with Atheists, Humanists and Hard-Core Theistic Evolutionists? That would account for your decay.

Nothing he said is anything worse than what you've said in the past, but you make excuses for it and pretend what is good for you isn't good for everybody else.

You KNOW - because I've been over this over a hundred times - that I have often stated that there is figurative-allegorical language all throughout Scripture and that includes Genesis. However, I've also stated that applying a time-tested, sound exegesis-hermeneutic allows us to discern what is going on 99.9% of the time (that's a figurative amount). Then, to top off your blatant dishonesty, you bring up ONCE AGAIN the "solid dome" argument, one that just recently I dispensed with for one of your ideological pals - 'Omega Red' or whatever he calls himself).

Many church fathers and theologians throughout the centuries really did believe in the sold dome there Jorge (you know, many of the same ones that were also YEC's). Of course, the reason modern YEC's don't is due to how impossible it has been shown to exist today so they turn it into 'figurative language'. Which isn't a problem, in of itself, unless they start attacking others for doing the same thing they themselves are doing.

Good thing for you that you are able to do these things here with no risk of prison time.

Yep because disagreeing with Jorge is equal to being a hoodlum that will end up in prison.