Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GourmetDan
Well that proves my point, doesn't it? You appeal to the 'Church Fathers' over the Scriptures. From the Biblical perspective, a natural day is defined by 'evening and morning' which only requires a source of light (conveniently created on Day 1). You argue yourself right out of believing the Scriptures through human logic. Not good.

LOL...no my friend, I believe the Scriptures. I believe ALL of them...so that means when I get two passages that don't seem to jive I try to figure out what the heck is going on instead of sweeping one of them under the rug to fit a pet theory.

Again, I think your dismissal of the exegetical problems here is cavalier. If we are talking about a source of light other than the sun, then what was this source of light? And were its evening and morning periods longer or shorter than the 24 hours we are used to with the sun?

Mine isn't an interpretation. It's a straightforward reading

And that's the problem. You seem to have equated, in your mind, your own personal reading with the "straightforward", plain, and obvious reading. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination.

94 posted on 06/04/2009 12:03:01 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: Claud
"LOL...no my friend, I believe the Scriptures. I believe ALL of them...so that means when I get two passages that don't seem to jive I try to figure out what the heck is going on instead of sweeping one of them under the rug to fit a pet theory."

LOL...no my friend, you don't believe the Scriptures and you certainly don't believe ALL of them. When you get two passages that don't seem to jive according to man's word, you jigger the Scriptures rather than question man's word.

"Again, I think your dismissal of the exegetical problems here is cavalier. If we are talking about a source of light other than the sun, then what was this source of light? And were its evening and morning periods longer or shorter than the 24 hours we are used to with the sun?"

I think your focus on supposed exegetical problems is the log in your own eye while focusing on the speck in mine. The Scriptures don't say what the light source was. Speculation is irrelevant unless naturalism is the goal. And speculating that evening and morning were longer or shorter is only necessary if conforming Scripture to man's word is your goal. Otherwise a straightforward reading is perfectly fine.

"And that's the problem. You seem to have equated, in your mind, your own personal reading with the "straightforward", plain, and obvious reading. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination."

'My own personal reading' was the same as that used in Exodus 20 and by believers for hundreds of years until man saying that the earth was older than 6,000 years became popular. Then it somehow became 'my own personal reading' to those who accept man's word over God's Word. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination.

111 posted on 06/04/2009 2:51:00 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson