Comunnekater
--and now i are one..."
Perhaps you're a bit young to have been a Mad Magazine fan...'-}
Posted on 02/05/2009 5:00:13 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
4.5 billion isnt hard to accept, if it were true, but the plain normal reading of genesis and the evidence supports six days better.
==Then why is the prospect of a 4.5 billion year old Earth so hard to accept?
Because it contradicts God’s word. Although, I must admit I find a six day creation far more impressive than 4.5 billion years. Can you imagine if Rome actually was built in a day!
Perhaps you're a bit young to have been a Mad Magazine fan...'-}
And Jesus affirmed Scripture.
Are you calling Jesus ignorant? You’re free to do so: It’s a free country.
But Au Contraire........the Bible says [Genesis 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.
The word I underlined (but) in the Hebrew is "hayah" and this is its Hebrew meaning: 1961. hayah (haw-yaw) to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)
A better translation of the verse would thus be: And the earth became 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.
This word "hayah" is translated correctly in [II Samuel 7:24] For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, LORD, art become (hayah) their God.
The fact that this is a past tense word implies a previous creation because [Genesis 1:1] says this: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. In verse two we learn that there is already an Earth, Waters, the Deep and Darkness (not to mention the heaven of verse one). These five things already exist before God said "let there be light".....!
Now, this in no way implies that this was a creation of light. God just says: "Let there be light"....as if it already existed.....and had just been turned off for some reason.
Genesis 1:3 is simply the starting point of a restoration of the already existing Earth back to what it may have been before.....and is called the first day. There quite possibly may have been billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.........
Thanks for the ping!
wrong, but thanx for playing our game.
Correction: paragraph two. The word I underlined is “was”....not “but”.
Your welcome. Why don't you expostulate a bit so we can find my error?
Now you are just being insulting. I am not doubting creation, I just don't believe that it is heretical to lift the hood and marvel at the processes created by and used by God to introduce life into a dynamic universe. On the contrary, I think it is sacrilegious to think that God is limited to abracadabra like processes. (if you research the word abracadabra you will find it is Aramaic in origin).
And thank you for the ping, dear TXnMA!
mega-dittoes!
There you go again dumping on a dead white European male. Again, you avoid answering my question as to why creationists are so arrogant as to believe their creation myth is the true one over all the others that mankind has produced.
That’s the Plan
GMT (and midday in the MidEast)
Everything I see points people away from Christ and toward their own works in one way or another. Liberalism has the Gospel of Marx, enough said. Mainstream evangelicalism is mostly self help pop culture. Fundamentalism keeps Christ hidden behind a ton of baggage. Maybe God has left us to our own devices so our culture can, quite deservedly, self-destruct.
What evidence is there to support the theory that what appears to be 4.5 billion years worth of uranium decay happened in less than 6000 years, without releasing the amount of heat that should have been associated with that decay?
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.