Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 121 of 161 (238039)
08-28-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by hoaryhead
08-28-2005 4:35 PM


RAZD and his broad shoulders
quote:
If I reply to this question by universal historical documentation; you will look mighty dumb
Razd has broad shoulders and I'm sure can stand the shame. Let's see the "documentation" - I'll be very surprised if it's anything we have not seen before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by hoaryhead, posted 08-28-2005 4:35 PM hoaryhead has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 6:25 PM CK has not replied

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 161 (238045)
08-28-2005 4:50 PM


False Charges
To Brian - #111
"Referencing a page in a book isn't really supporting an argument, you should at least give some indication of how the author reached their opinion."
NOTE: You have contrasted "author" and "opiniom" (both sg.) with "their" (pl.)
The names of the evolutionists were spelled properly in my post, whose ideas had been discarded.
Neither Isaac Asimov, nor myself, deemed it necessary to note that this had been concluded from reading history. This should have been obvious to one and all.
I would like to get to know you, and learn of your ideas.
But your response did not contain any ideas.
The Administrator had bemoaned the fact that most of the posts were off the subject.
Your post did not mention the subject.
Let us learn to be happy campers, and make our Administrator proud.
hoaryhead

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Brian, posted 08-28-2005 5:23 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 123 of 161 (238058)
08-28-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by hoaryhead
08-28-2005 4:50 PM


Re: False Charges
NOTE: You have contrasted "author" and "opiniom" (both sg.) with "their" (pl.)
Their is used to keep the language inclusive. I used their instead of his/her.
I always thought that their was an adjective, that can also be used as a third person singular antecedent.
What if I said, I saw a person entering what I thought was their car.
Is there a problem with that sentence?
You do know you spelled opinion incorrectly?
Neither Isaac Asimov, nor myself, deemed it necessary to note that this had been concluded from reading history. This should have been obvious to one and all.
I seriously doubt if anything you have posted is obvious to anyone, you do appear to have very poor communication skills, but perhaps this will improve before you graduate from high school.
I would like to get to know you, and learn of your ideas.
But your response did not contain any ideas.
I only asked you a simple question, which was: Is this Isaac Asimov the science fiction writer?
That is all I asked you, you then appear to have confused me with someone else who has said something about evolution changing, or something similar.
I haven’t mentioned evolution to you at all, it is not a subject that interests me that much.
Your post did not mention the subject.
My own opinion of the topic is from an historical perspective and that it is clear that the young earth idea came long before the inerrant scripture. None of the church fathers (that I know of) took the Bible literally, but many of them, and many non Christians, believed that the earth was young.
The idea of a perfect, inerrant bible that is to be taken 100% literally is a relatively new phenomenon, arising (I believe) about 1500 years after the birth of Jesus.
In the context of the OP, I believe that being suffocated with the inerrancy approach to the Bible has to come before a believing in a young earth as nothing outside the Bible suggests this. I am not even convinced that the Bible suggests a young earth.
Let us learn to be happy campers, and make our Administrator proud.
I am a very happy camper.
Brian.
edited to include a missing sentence.
This message has been edited by Brian, 08-28-2005 05:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by hoaryhead, posted 08-28-2005 4:50 PM hoaryhead has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 8:30 PM Brian has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 161 (238077)
08-28-2005 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by hoaryhead
08-28-2005 4:35 PM


truths, evidence and substantiation
hoaryhead writes:
If I reply to this question by universal historical documentation....
What I have asked for (in general) is documentation that the dates you gave were actually in the bible with clear references to the years involved so that no interpretation is needed.
All the events that are BC dates were written before the bible, because the bible was written ~200? ~300? (I forget which) AD.
That makes them pre-existing historical record and not predictions. Documenting the actual history of the events by other sources does not alter that fact. NONE of these historical "predictions" involved peoples and places that were unknown to the people of the bible (like the Ansazi Indians in NAmerica).
(2) "another source for the flood" (paraphrased).
Tom Brokaw, anchorman for NBC News, showed a film of the shoreline of the ocean etched into the Himalayas about 10,000 feet above sea level, in about 1995.
Again, some kind of source to check the dates, locations, claims, would make your assertion more valid. I tried several googles to get more information, but came up blank. So I can only take this at face value.
So the flood only rose 10,000 feet (whoops that's not what the book says, is it?) and the Himalayas stuck out above the water, towering up to another 19,000 feet (+/- allowing for change in Everest since then)? That doesn't sound right either.
http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/..._gallery/mountains.htm
This is evidence of ancient sea bottom and shoreline and not of flood. There are seashells on Everest. This is not evidence for a flood, but for the tectonic movement and the geology that is still on-going (and measurable) in the Himalayas and elsewhere. There are LOTS of places where there are ancient {bottom\shoreline}. Problem is that they are in different strata, and have different dates, different fossils, and some are layered on top of others.
Nor is this evidence for a worldwide event, as you need to show evidence for the flood in one layer around the world: no matter how turbulent {you\others} speculate things were at the beginning of the flood, there were NO massive earthquakes and restructuring of the earth post flood: it was calm, and there was sufficient time for a significant enough sedimentary layer to be deposited on every acre of land. This would be like the iridium layer found around the world in the same layers and at an age of 65 mya at the end of the age of dinosaurs and indicative of the {asteroid\meteor} striking the Yucatan. Unfortunately (for you) this is NOT in a sedimentary layer.
What is your honest opinion; could carbon-dating have dated this shoreline, and adjacent artifacts?
What is the reported age of your shoreline? If it had truly cut into the rock that would require sufficient time for erosion.
Carbon dating is only valid up to 50,000 years ago, is invalid on rocks (it is an organic process being measured, the object tested had to have lived and consumed oxygen carbon from the atmosphere), and is generally NOT done on shells (because the carbonate used to make the shells can come from ancient reservoir sources that would bias the 14C data to make the object appear to be more ancient than it really was). Other systems are used that give valid dates for these objects. If nothing else, the layers above and below are dated and that {brackets} the time of the shoreline. And usually more than one system is used to date objects to ensure against errors and corrupted samples.
What artifacts? All you mentioned was shoreline.
More compelling to me is the evidence of the Black Sea inundation being the source for the mythification of a massive flood:
Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
And I repeat, how do you reconcile your position with an actual tree was 4844 years old when cut down in 1957 (that makes the world at least 4,894 years old, and also means that the flood occurred more than 4,894 years ago -- as absolute minimums). This evidence contradicts your asserted age for the earth and the time of the flood, so either:
(1) your dates are all completely wrong, and based on false speculations OR
(2) the age of the tree is wrong ... and the corroborating evidence of climate and age with oaks in england, ice in greenland, ice in the andeas and lake sediment in japan (among others), the evidence of 14C dates from the trees and organic objects in the lake varves and ice layers is all mysteriously the same even though they are totally different {systems\environments\processes}.
Care to speculate which is correct?
you will look mighty dumb.
But I do not want to do that to you.
(this would save you great shame)
The man of strife is condemned by the Living God.
Logical fallacy (appeal to consequences), has nothing to do with the argument.
Your more moderate evolution buddies do not talk in such a radical and uninformed manner.
Logical fallacy (style over substance), has nothing to do with the argument.
The news media is pro-Atheism, and so, this has been suppressed, and never repeated or enlarged upon.
Ah, yes. Every time I see a news report on the "miracle" of {this} and the "miracle" of {that}, and especially when the {event} is due to human actions (the evacuation of a plane in Toronto, medical procedures, athletic prowess ... numerous examples come to mind), this is based on some atheist kind of {miracle} eh? ... riiiiiight. This is just another groundless assertion of the same degree of validity as the claim that the news is a liberal conspiracy.
More to the point, news is not science and frequently mis-reports scientific findings.
And there is plenty of scientific evidence of ancient sea bottom and shoreline in the Himalayas, so this is NOT suppressed.
Let us be friends, and begin to seek truth instead of strife.
Then let us talk with evidence and not assertions.
Enjoy.
Do you want the message sent privately
I don't do off-site debates. Put your evidence here where all can see and we'll see how it pertains to the claims and counterclaims.
or, would you like to withdraw the post
Without any refuting evidence of any kind? Hardly.
{{fixed quote box}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*29*2005 07:24 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by hoaryhead, posted 08-28-2005 4:35 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 161 (238078)
08-28-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by CK
08-28-2005 4:41 PM


Re: RAZD and his broad shoulders
heh, I have shouldered a few 'broads' ...
people tell me I am strong
(but odor isn't everything)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 4:41 PM CK has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 126 of 161 (238079)
08-28-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by hoaryhead
08-28-2005 4:35 PM


Re: He who loves tells not all
Tom Brokaw, anchorman for NBC News, showed a film of the shoreline of the ocean etched into the Himalayas about 10,000 feet above sea level, in about 1995.
The news media is pro-Atheism, and so, this has been suppressed, and never repeated or enlarged upon.
Never repeated or enlarged upon.....?
This very board has a thread somewhere with a post by Bill Birkeland that documents how the uppermost couple of thousand feet of Mount Everest is composed of rock that was formed from the remains of critters growing in a shallow sea. Of course, this is small comfort to the YEC camp, as this rock has since been first buried deep enough to be heated to 600 degrees F or more, and second been uplifted over the last 60,000,000 years to be exposed by erosion and carried up six miles above sealevel.
Contemporary geology is more than comfortable with ancient seashores that are now on mountains. Banff, Alberta sits among some! Heck, Leonardo da Vinci described one 500 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by hoaryhead, posted 08-28-2005 4:35 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 161 (238236)
08-29-2005 9:31 AM


RAZD Has Broad Shoulders
RAZD - #121
To: RAZD - #110.
"I repeat, they were already history when the Bible was written thus cannot be PREdiction but are POSTdictions -- just another record of history, with the caveat thrown in that {{our}} god caused it."
1) "The book of Daniel is found in all copies of the Septuagint. This oldest version of Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was made under Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 280 BC" - Reason and Revelation, 1867, Robert Milligan; p. 152.
2) "So Josephus testifies in the following brief extract: 'And when he [Alexander the Great] went up into the temple he offered sacrifice to God according to the high priest's directions ... And when the book of Daniel was shown him, wherein Daniel declared one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians [Dan 8.4-8], he supposed that himself was the person intended" - Ibid., p. 152; quoting Antiq. 11.8.5 (written AD 95).
NOTE: Alexander left Judah to conquer Egypt, in 332 BC; and he returned to defeat Persia in October of 331 BC, at the battle of Gaugamela
3) "By 200 AD there were Latin and Syriac translations of the New Testament, and one in Coptic (Egyptian language) within the following century" - Modern Reference Encyclopedias [and probably all others], 1967; Bible, Vol 3, p 98.
4) "CANON OF SCRIPTURE ... The Hebrew Canon, which for all practical purposes was fixed before the time of Christ, was taken over by Christians as their Old Testament ..." - Ibid., Canon.
5) "First, Nero has self-acknowledged Christians arrested" - Tacitus, p 365.
[Nero reigned AD 54-68.]
6) "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from the city" - Suetonius, p 202.
7) Revelation was written by the apostle John, and is dated by the death of Antipas; AD 66 - Wars 4.3.4/5.
"I know your [Smyrna] works, and where you dwell, where Satan's [denier] throne is [temple to Zeus]. And you hold fast to My name [4 names of God denied today], and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas [Sun darkened] was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan [Israel] dwells [Jerusalem]" - Rev 2.13.
Satan is used as an epithet for Israel several times.
hoaryhead

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 6:53 PM hoaryhead has replied

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 161 (238243)
08-29-2005 10:21 AM


Taking the Resurrection Literally
To Brian - #123
1) Besides being an accomplished grammarian of the English language, I have also studied and translated several books of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.
Your excuse for mingling singular and plural nouns is not condoned in any language.
2) "I seriously doubt if anything you have posted is obvious to anyone, you do appear to have very poor communication skills, but perhaps this will improve before you graduate from high school."
The problem is not my writing; it is your inability to read.
You asked again, "Was Isaac Asimov a fiction writer?"
This had been answered for you -- by another poster -- but you could not comprehend the answers -- in grade school grammar.
A) Yes.
B) Quoted, "Mr. Asimov is generally recognized as one of this country's leading writers in science."
Have your mother explain the meaning to you.
2) "None of the church fathers (that I know of) took the Bible literally, but many of them ... believed that the earth was young."
First Clement: "Let us consider, dear friends, how the Master continually points out to us the coming resurrection of which he made the Lord Iesous Anointed [Jesus Christ - only after AD 1725] the firstfruit when he raised him from the dead. [2] Let us observe, dear friends, the resurrection that regularly occurs. [3] Day and night show us the resurrection: the night falls asleep, and day arises ..." - Apostolic Fathers, 1989, Baker Books, p. 42.
"I come quickly" - 6 times.
"tribulation 10 days" - Rev 2.10.
"some standing here shall not taste death' - Mt 16.27-28.
"For the night is far spent, the day is at hand" - Rom 13.12.
"Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!" - Jas 5.9.
Then came the Papal Dark Ages, and all these Scriptures were denied.
Barnabas wrote of the "young earth."
Jesus is a Teacher of Parables; however, most of the words of Jesus are to be interpreted semi-literally.
By this word, semi-literally, is meant a literal statement containing a symbol.
For instance, "Let the dead bury the dead."
The first word "dead" is a symbol for the "lost."
The second use of the word "dead" refers to the "dead" father a man wanted to bury.
The church fathers continued to write semi-literal.
Our quote demonstrates this fact, where night and day are employed for death and resurrection.
hoaryhead

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Brian, posted 08-29-2005 10:47 AM hoaryhead has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 129 of 161 (238249)
08-29-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Taking the Resurrection Literally
To Brian - #123
1) Besides being an accomplished grammarian of the English language, I have also studied and translated several books of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.
Your excuse for mingling singular and plural nouns is not condoned in any language.
So, what is wrong with the sentence I gave as an example?
If you are an accomplished grammarian, then I take it that you have a degree of some description.
Let me ask you, if you were to assess a university essay and the following sentence was in that essay, what would your comment be on it (if any)?
A theologian should always double check his sources.
If this sentence was included in a formal piece of writing, would you make any comment about it?
However, once again you have made an empty statement by claiming that I am incorrect and not informing me why.
The problem is not my writing; it is your inability to read.
I suggest then that everyone reading this thread has that same inability.
You asked again, "Was Isaac Asimov a fiction writer?"
I didnt ask again!
I pointed out that this was the only question that I asked and that you then went on to confuse me with someone else, which I think you are still doing.
This had been answered for you -- by another poster -- but you could not comprehend the answers -- in grade school grammar.
I know it had been answered, I wasnt asking the question again, I was showing you what the only question was that I asked you, I didn't ask you anything about evolution!
Read the posts again, and then try and discover who it was that asked you the question about evolution, it certainly wasn't me.
Have your mother explain the meaning to you.
My mother died when I was 14, so I would have difficulty asking her anything.
First Clement: "Let us consider, dear friends, how the Master continually points out to us the coming resurrection of which he made the Lord Iesous Anointed [Jesus Christ - only after AD 1725] the firstfruit when he raised him from the dead. [2] Let us observe, dear friends, the resurrection that regularly occurs. [3] Day and night show us the resurrection: the night falls asleep, and day arises ..." - Apostolic Fathers, 1989, Baker Books, p. 42.
"I come quickly" - 6 times.
"tribulation 10 days" - Rev 2.10.
"some standing here shall not taste death' - Mt 16.27-28.
"For the night is far spent, the day is at hand" - Rom 13.12.
"Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!" - Jas 5.9.
Then came the Papal Dark Ages, and all these Scriptures were denied.
Barnabas wrote of the "young earth."
Jesus is a Teacher of Parables; however, most of the words of Jesus are to be interpreted semi-literally.
By this word, semi-literally, is meant a literal statement containing a symbol.
For instance, "Let the dead bury the dead."
The first word "dead" is a symbol for the "lost."
The second use of the word "dead" refers to the "dead" father a man wanted to bury.
The church fathers continued to write semi-literal.
Our quote demonstrates this fact, where night and day are employed for death and resurrection.
As I said, none of the church fathers took the Bible 100% literally.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 10:21 AM hoaryhead has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 1:13 PM Brian has replied

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 161 (238254)
08-29-2005 10:58 AM


No Massive Earthquakes
RAZD - #124
".. there were NO massive earthquakes and restructuring of the earth post flood: it was calm ..."
1) Turkey's nothern plain was bordered in by shifting of the earth resulting from earthquakes. The Sakarya River cannot return to the sea. During the wet season the plain is flooded, and was formerly (during First World War) impassable. During the dry season, because the rains are salt water from the Medirerranean, salt flats form, "preparing the way for the kings of the east" (Ataturk and his troops) in AD 1922. The British and French and Greeks and Italians were driven fron Turkey.
2) "A hydrogen bomb generates one-hundreth to one-tenth the energy of the largest earthquake" - Modern Reference Encyclopedia, 1967.
3) The San Francisco fire is believed to have ressulted from an earthquake.
4) "An earthquake also largely demolished the populus Campanian town of Pompeii" - Tacitus, p 353.
This town and the surrounding environment has continued to be demolished, and the earth restructured, until the present day.
The pictures are an awesome display of God's power.
This post was better RAZD.
hoaryhead

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by AdminBrian, posted 08-29-2005 11:02 AM hoaryhead has not replied
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 7:36 PM hoaryhead has not replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 161 (238255)
08-29-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 10:58 AM


Re: No Massive Earthquakes
Hoary,
Here is some help for replying to a message.
If you look at the bottom right hand corner of the post that you are replying to, you will see three 'buttons'
'edit' 'reply' 'peek'
If you hit the 'reply' button then you will be taken to a screen where you can directly reply to that message. This is a lot easier than typing out the message number.
Also, if the member has an email account registered, they will receive an email informing them that you have replied to one of their messages and they can then get back to you.
Hope this helps.
AdminBrian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 10:58 AM hoaryhead has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 132 of 161 (238256)
08-29-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by hoaryhead
08-28-2005 4:39 PM


Re: Mistaken Identity
Thank you for the editing advice, but I do not seem to have the knack for it.
I live in Illinois. Come and teach me.
Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by hoaryhead, posted 08-28-2005 4:39 PM hoaryhead has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 08-29-2005 11:25 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 133 of 161 (238258)
08-29-2005 11:11 AM


Help ma Boab!
The problem is not my writing; it is your inability to read.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 134 of 161 (238265)
08-29-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Nuggin
08-29-2005 11:03 AM


Re: Mistaken Identity
Thank you for the editing advice, but I do not seem to have the knack for it.
I live in Illinois. Come and teach me.
Huh?
I live in Illinois, and that shows on my posts. It seems that hoaryhead, who declares himself "an accomplished grammarian of the English language" is unable to read carefully enough to tell who wrote what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Nuggin, posted 08-29-2005 11:03 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 12:48 PM nwr has replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 135 of 161 (238277)
08-29-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by coffee_addict
08-25-2005 2:28 PM


GAW-Snow writes:
You do realize that you're not the Chris I was referring to, right? I'm talking about Chris P.
Yes, certainly. I was just trying to get a (not-very funny) one-liner about the large number of people who try to be smartasses. I was making no comment about you in particular, other than that you often try to interject humo(u)rous off-topic comments like everyone else in the group.
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 08-25-2005 2:28 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024