Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

nwr
NugginI am a newcomer to computers and the Internet.
Please explain the formatting to me.
What does "nwr" mean in the left margin?
What does "Nuggin" mean at the bottom?Thank you.hoaryhead

Hello, Brian:1) "... the author (sg.) and their (pl.) opinion."
One man cannot be both singular and plural.
This is nonsense.2) No degree as a grammarian. But I have read many Ph.Ds that did not use proper grammar. So then, a college degree does not indicate anything except willing submission to brainwashing of some sort.My accomplishments, assisted by the Spirit of God, are to comprehend written messages that no one else that I have encountered, in 20 years of research, has been able to comprehend.
A short list is:
The 7 Spirits of God - Isa 11.1-4; Eph 4.4-6; Rev 5.12; Rev 7.12.
3 Ages of Man - 2Pet 3.6, 3.7-10, 3.13.
3 General Resurrections - 1cor 15.22-24.
3 Days in the Tomb - Mt 12.40.
6 Particular Resurrections - Enoch, Elijah, the Lamb of God, Old Heavens, First Resurrection, New Heavens.3) "A theologian should always double check his sources."
Now, this proves that your previous statement was wrong.
"Theologian" and "his" are both singular.
Previously you wrote, "author and their opinions."
This is a terrible mistake.You have really touched on one of the critical points of Bible translation and interpretation.
The singular should be considered separate from the plural.Keep plugging.hoaryhead

The name at the top left is the author (the handle of the author) of that post.The name at the bottome should be self explatory. The text says:This message is a reply to
Message 136 by hoaryheadThere can also be additional lines of the formReplies to this message
Message 137 by nwrIt's a way of identifying which message is being replied to, and what further replies exist.

In this context the word 'their' can be used as a singular, as my example about the person getting into their car demonstrated. No argument here This just proves that you are no grammarian.What if the theologian was a woman?In today's academic world the use of exclusive language is frowned upon, this is a good example of why the word 'their' can be used in a singular context.Now, my previous example (author and their) does not make any reference to the gender of the author, and wouldn't do unless the author was named.An author could be a man or a woman, thus, using the word 'their' is perfectly acceptable.Think of the word 'their' as being possessive and not referring to more than one person.Perhaps you may wish to correct the many on-line dictionaries that support my usage?Try the Cambridge 2 used to refer to one person in order to avoid saying 'his or her': One of the students has left their book behind. (emphasis mine)Or this 2. (used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine form his or the definite feminine form her): Someone left their book on the table. Did everyone bring their lunch? Cf. theirs. My usage is perfectly correct and supported by any dictionary you wish to use. No it is not a mistake at all, the gender of the author is not stated therefore it is acceptable to use "their".What is a terrible mistake though, is you claiming that you are an accomplished grammarian of the English language.So, remember that when the sex of a person is not referred to, the use of the word "their" in a singular context is perfectly acceptable.Come on Hoary, this is primary school stuff.Now, a short apology from you to me, and we can move on.Brian.edited out a half sentenceThis message has been edited by Brian, 08-29-2005 01:50 PM

So the oldest record of this text is from ~280 BCE, according to your source. That's 50 years (a lifetime) before the oldest record of the text ... and the text describing Alexander's viewing of it is dated ... when? Same as Daniel?Do you not see a problem with the first record of the "prediction" being 50 years after the fact? Now you are conflating {early christian} with the {writing of the bible} to obfuscate the issue that I raised. There were many sects of christians, and some with very different viewpoint, I believe. In any event the bible was not {written\assembled\codified} until much later.The Council of Nicea is a good place to start, where the "Nicene Creed" was codified and agreed on ... by all that weren't banished and {ex-communicated\exiled} for having false beliefs.FROM: The Council of Nicaea and the Bible(click)
Of course this is using the records of the Coucil of Nicea ... and without questions.I just love people verbally stumbling over trying to minimize the fact that "almost no" means {there was some} evidence. There is also an unavoidable bias in believers having to believe that the bible they believe in is not made of cloth, and this makes their analysis questionable at best.In any event, whatever evidence they do or don't have (from the perps?) or that they choose or don't to view, there are also writings that have been found by archaeologists that are NOT in the bible and that appear to be as valid accounts of one or the other apostles as any in the bible, like Thomas the Gnostic (and what happened to the Gnostics anyway eh?). Exclusion is evidence of censorship regardless of what is known to have been censored eh?we also have
FROM: Oldest known Bible to go online (click)
and FROM: Oldest Bible Version(click)
The older "vulgate" is not in existence and in only known by reference, and so cannot be compared directly to a current bible. This leaves us with 383 CE as the earliest known fully recorded version.The point being that the book was {written\assembled\codified} between ~200 and ~300 CE (if not later), some elements known to have existed then are omitted, so there could well be others -- others with as much validity as the elements that are included. We do not know what they say. We do know that there were sects that were persecuted by more "main-line" christian sects.I note in passing that 168 BCE is a LOT later than 280 BCE ... and loooong after 331 BCE. But I also note to be fair, that the dead sea scrolls span a time from the ~third century BCE to ~70 CE, so just that one portion is 168 BCE.All of this is just a long winded way of saying that all you have is a book {written\assembled\codified} after an event that you say it predicted.And this doesn't even address this issue of a {non-bias\arms-length} prediction muddied by letting the person involved in on the hoped for results of the experiment: I also do not see a predicted year for the conquest (didn't you originally include that or did I just misread you?), so we are in effect, sitting around waiting until the first conqueror comes along that could be called "greek" and who happens to conquer "persia" and if it hadn't been Alexander, there would have been other candidates made to fit the "prediction" -- this is the pattern of your later "predictions" btw.Results so far:(1)
ACTION - Alexander conquers persia
PRE^POSTDICTION - follows 50 years (or more) later in the earliest known records.(2)
Earliest date (new testament) contents of bible can be verified is 383 CE, without knowing what has been left out or purged as contradictory. This makes all historical references to {actions\occurrences\happening} from before that period just historical references and not predictions of any kind.You have not shown {documented\dated\sealed} PREDICTION {followed by} EVENT {followed by} REVELATION OF PREDICTION.You still have not shown how you derive dates from the bible: Or later (it just has to follow the event)? John would have to have been in his 60's at the time, not unreasonable, but why so late? Again, how do you get to 66 CE? My searching only finds that his rule ended in 39 CE, and there doesn't seem to be any agreement on when he died.FROM: Herod Antipas (click)
I would expect an encyclopedia to have birth and death of {relevant person} when those dates are known.AND.You still have not shown how a 4894 year old tree can be explained in your timeline of the world and the universe.It seems to me to be rather irrelevant to be discussing dates at all until this issue is resolved, seeing as it challenges the whole structure of your dating frames, but that would be me.Enjoy.

---

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

and, adding to what AdminBrian said: There are two buttons at the top of the message you are replying to that allow you to chose between {normal} and {peek mode} -- in peek mode you can see how quote boxes like the above are coded. Excuse me for not being more explicitly specific. My mistake. My intended meaning was that there was no period, immediately following a (supposed) worldwide flood, of world-wide massive earthquakes that restructured the whole earth in the last 65,000,000 years or more (that goes back to the {meteor\asteroid} impact at the end of the age of dinosaurs, which comes the closest, imho).All these {images} of yours are just more evidence of tectonic movement of plates of the earth such as have been going on for as long as there has been a solid surface (~4 billion years). So you concede:

• That the Brokaw video (whatever it shows) is not scientific evidence of a flood, but just normal tectonic plate lifting and mountain forming,
• That there is no evidence for a worldwide flood,
• And that your dates are all completely wrong, and based on false speculations.

I say this because you have presented no evidence or argument to refute these points made in the post you replied to, nor do you demonstrate that you misunderstood those points (so you must have understood them if I did better at explaining them to you, right?).Enjoy.

---

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

See:andClick on the images for larger versions easier to read.

---

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

I agree, particularly about YEC, evidenced by OEC and gapEC and ... etc. ... just among fundamentalists.In fact this is why Christianity will survive acknowledging that the evidence for an old earth is at least as compelling (if not more accessible to the average bear) than the evidence for the earth circling the sun.YEC is dead, Christianity will live on.

---

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

Dear RAZD:You are too uneducated to talk to.Little children know more truth than you do.Consider these extremely dumb remarks;
1) "oldest copy is 280 BC."
Quote: "oldest copy of Hebrew INTO GREEK."2) Jewish history, quoted from Josephus -- not the Scriptures -- described Alexander & Daniel's prophecy; which was recorded, "first year of Belshazzar"; and dated - 556 BC; from Babylonian artifacts.You are too uneducated to communicate with anyone, and so, with no bitter feelings, I will refuse to respond to you again.hoaryhead

Tell you what: you keep this up and you won't be able to respond to any one for awhile.

ROFLOLthe old declare victory and run from the field (at a gallop) gambit. Pure unadulterated ad hominem attack on the person and not on the message.Problem for you: the message defeats you if you have no answser to it. What I actually said was: So if there is another source out there and you did not provide it, this can hardly by my fault, eh? If you have other, valid information (even if you failed to provide it before) I will be glad to consider it. All I ask is for substantiation of your positions.From Septuagint - Wikipedia WHAT??? making changes??? For {political} reasons???And this is, of course, still after Alexander did his conquering thing.Any speculations come to mind there?Of course I also said: And these are notably ancient hebrew (and LOTS of stuff not in the bible ... although I believe there a couple of ones in other languages). Dated from artifacts? Sorry I am going to need much more of a reference than this. And you still have yet to provide that handy dandy conversion metric to get from {mythical\historical} dates to a method that is only 1000 years old (and erroneous). See if you can substantiate this one point, seeing as you have been unable to substantiate any other. It doesn't bother me that you acknowledge defeat, even if you have to pretend to yourself that you are leaving a winner (the evidence says otherwise).Thank you for conceding the points on himalayan shorelines, tectonic movement, lack of evidence for worldwide events of flood and restructuring, post-dictions of events, the actual validity of the many dating methods including ¹⁴C, and that the fossil evidence supports common descent and evolution (I think that about covers the list of your points I have corrected with evidence and which you have not attempted to refute)....AND.You still have not shown how a 4894 year old tree can be explained in your timeline of the world and the universe.Enjoy your gallopBe sure to cover your eyes and ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA-LA as you go.Watch out for the trees. Especially Pinus longaeva ... they have long roots.bu-bye.

---

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

Administrator:
Your forum is a wonderful service to the public.
Some good is being accomplished.
However, you have too many troublemakers who do not discuss the topics but -- against your rules -- promote their own creed
(such as Atheism with RAZD) -- by constantly misquoting posts of others and then argue about the "straw man" of their own making.
In his replies to me, RAZD has misquoted me every single time.
I thought that I stated the case very moderately and politely.
I never misquoted RAZD's posts.
Respectfully,
hoaryhead

There are other things wrong with the site.There are too many people who appear to have enough time to post personal remarks but no time to acknowledge their mistakes.We also have people here who think they know what they are talking about when they clearly don't.Brian.

I went back and reread the exchange between you and RazD and it seems to me that he did not misquote you. In fact he was very careful to provide exact quotes from both your messages and his responses.Your accusation appears unfounded. If you can point out specific incidents where he misquoted you I will investigate further. If not, then I believe you owe RazD an apology.

---

To the Forum:We are presently flooded with propaganda for "unisex language" in translating the Bible; or, as Brian has labeled it, "inclusive language."Although these people hate the fact, English is still the legal language in the United States of America.So then, the plural word "their" in the English language; is insisted to be singular by Brian in his "unisex language."The obvious goal of "unisex language"; determined by an honest appraisal of the writings supporting it; is to deny "The Father and The Son"; and to deny "The Male Head and the Female Body."These are Signs of the Times.So then, Brian and I, speaking opposing languages, are unable to communicate with each other.But, my language is legal.hoaryhead