Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to keep it afloat. One of these is “inflation,” which attempts to explain the apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
“Because of the lack of the definite article, the Bible does not indicate that the days were consecutive. Much time could have passed between “day” three and “day” four. Again, this is consistent with scientific observations.”
I think you're attributing more to the lack of a definite article than is justified. I know Biblical Hebrew has no indefinite article except as shown by a lack of the definite before a noun.
To me it appears the context as seen by the writer determines whether the article will be used of not as in Gen. 2:4 where heavens and earth lack the article but plainly it's not “a” heavens and earth as though there several even if that is the literal reading.
Hence translators have “the” not “a” here.
There may be other examples such as when Noah sent out “a” or “the” dove and raven.
Thus most translators will attempt to convey the meaning from the context to the translator and not the absolute literal reading. And so “a” day would not indicate time between the “days” that were not part of those days.
See #318. While I was composing #319 online, our AM was taking action...
Please don’t pull the thread. That would wrongfully punish several folks here who are enjoying a nice, polite exchange of views...
It is stalking when I tell the liar “for” Jesus to get lost THREE TIMES. I don’t take kindly to liars, especially when they claim to be speaking for God.
Tell me TX, do you always stand up for liars just because you happen to agree with them? If I catch someone lying on my side, I expect them to make a full and complete apology. But if it is your policy to stand up for liars like DallasMike, then I can only assume that you approve of such things.
Even after you have told him THREE TIMES that you no longer wish to have anything to do with him?
DallasMike is not a liar.
I have proof to the contrary.
PS You have been talking to DM like you two have only just met. So on what experience are you drawing from to declare him truthful when he is accused of being a liar?
You seem so anxious to score points that you’re unable to understand what I’ve said or understand a simple question but so be it.
You also said this in post #202 but I guess you don’t remember:
“The third assumption OECs must make is that the reference to creating the sun, moon and stars on the 4th Day does not represent an actual act of creation, but merely an act of revealing.”
It was the fact that the word “create” doesn’t appear (you’re attempting to insert it) in this description of the fourth day that prompted my request to research the words used but since you either haven’t or cannot understand what you’ve read its clear that you need time to do a bit of catch up research. Come back when you have and we’ll have something to discuss.
We aren’t asking too much are we? My tagline was made with that in mind.
[[Really? I would love to here more about this amazing discovery of yours because it contradicts all known science.]]
Really? All know science? I don’t think so- You’ll finmd plenty online- knock yerself out
Are you asking me? If so, what has light years got to do with radiometric dating methods, and assumptions that drive Macroevolutionary a priori opinions?
[[DallasMike is not a liar.
]]
I’ve already caught him in one- Trying to insinuate that Macroevolutionary science is settled on the matter and that all of science evidence points to old earth age- it does not- Now perhaps he’s just unaware there is plenty of young earth evidnece- but I strongly doubt that if he’s been here any length of time as plenty has been posted.
Good post metmom- You bring up some goodp opints-
[[I don’t get what this making God out to be a liar business is. It’s just another manipulation technique to try to force people to accept that kind of reasoning and back them into a corner to force acceptance of a certain point of view.]]
Bingo- A dirty little tactic to say hte least-
I can read. Your proof (from this thread) is?
If these guys truly are scientists (as they claim), I think I am finally starting to figure out why there is so much fraud connected to the same. They don’t check their facts, and when you call them on their many errors, they try to paper over them as though the errors never happened. No wonder so many Americans are losing their faith in science. Science itself is not the problem, it’s the scientists who are abusing the public’s trust who are causing their field of knowledge to fall into disrepute.
Let’s start from the beginning of the thread, shall we? DallasMike starts with ignorant prejudice and then works his way down to outright lies.
But let’s start with a simple question. Do you approve of scientists who misrepresent the truth in any way, shape or form?
Do you approve of scientists putting forth “evidence” that they themselves have not taken the trouble to understand?
Do you approve of scientists who have been proven wrong not owning up to their mistakes?
Do you approve of scientists who actively try to paper over their own ignorance?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.