Posted on 12/15/2010 5:17:34 AM PST by ImProudToBeAnAmerican
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” (Exodus 20:11a KJV)
According to evolutionary scientists, the earth is over 4 billion years old; but Biblical chronology dates the age of the earth at about 6,000 years. In an attempt to reconcile the two extreme positions, many creation scientists have used 2 Peter 3:8 to state that the six days mentioned in the Genesis account were not literal 24-hour days. However, if we used the “a day is as a thousand years” formula, we would have the six days of creation plus the day of rest equaling 7,000 years, at most. Hardly a good reconciliation with 4 billion years. So, how old is the earth?...
Fifth article in a series about Creation by Rosemarie Thompson.
Comments welcome!
(Excerpt) Read more at inspiretomorrow.wordpress.com ...
I don’t understand why either “side” of this discussion feels compelled to disprove the other side. If some folks want to believe the earth is 6000 years old, who cares? If some folks choose to believe in “old earth,” who cares?
Wait. You’re RCC aren’t you? That would explain so much about why we’re butting heads, you don’t hold to Sola Scriptura.
Yes, but was the 'point' of the story that a RICH MAN could NOT get into heaven, or HOW he gets into heaven? Did the story speak of how he must divest himself of riches, or is that an 'implication' based on the story?
Does it really matter what the needle was, if the 'concept' is understood ?
Most definitely not. I don't agree with their soteriology. But then you would already know that had you clicked my screen name.
but I suppose I already knew what would return upon asking for some hard exegetical data from the text of the Bible.
... but I will stand by just in case you find something.
lol ... might be the only thing spoken of on this thread that has absolute certainty of being correct.
You have everything all figured out and tied up with a neat bow. You know you're not interested in unwrapping it, and so do I. :)
No. They were stations for the great Gods. Tiamut was the slain enemy of Marduk. NO WAY would Marduk set at station for Tiamut after slaying her.
I agree with what you say for the most part, but considering the impact of death before sin on other parts of Theology means that I’m not comfortable with a gap theory there just yet.
I agree that God is Righteous, Just, Holy and Sovereign, follows His own rules and can do the impossible, but at the same time He won’t do something that would cause chaos or confusion among His followers. God is not a God of confusion after all.
So when Christ says, "This IS my Body" you accept the bread as his flesh?
So you’re reformed Calvinist, got it. Thought you were RCC due to your insistance upon mankind’s understanding trumping God’s word.
If you’re reformed, then what’s your beef with Fundamentalists who hold to the Scriptures as being inerrant? Don’t give me that “biblically illiterate” crap either, that’s an elitist cop-out considering that most Fundamentalists study the Bible more than the average Christian.
I just thought it was interesting, and a bit intellectually inconsistent, for you to try to use that line - written by a YEC - against a YEC for interpreting the Scripture the exact same way Holding does on this point.
Further, I'd be careful about relying on JP Holding for guidance as to what is a "biblically illiterate/fundie intepretation of the Bible." I've noticed over the years that Holding himself is a bit inconsistent when it comes to biblical interpretation, and that his idea of "biblically illiterate" tends more to do with whether somebody's interpretation disagrees with his personal interpretation, rather than whether it is internally consistent with the text and context of Scripture. In other words, Holding isn't exactly someone I consider credible when weighing somebody else's biblical understandings.
He’s a literaure expert.
So are these guys:
Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh are members of The Context Group
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-Commentary-Synoptic-Gospels-Malina/dp/0800634918
The Context Group:
http://www.contextgroup.org/
The Scriptures are inerrant in the original autographs. The problem comes in with the "interpretation of Scripture."
It gets pretty perverted:
But when he turned his attention to his animals,
the gazelles saw Enkidu and darted off,
the wild animals distanced themselves from his body.
Then basically, the Bible is the Word of God as interpreted by the many authors and editors of the Bible.
From your link:
The basic answer to these charges, which I have recently pointed out elsewhere, is that if anyone is to blame for the loss of clarity, etc. in the Bible over the ages, it is we who are to shoulder the blame for losing it. We can look at a few examples of how this is so, but first there is a certain practical consideration arguing against the very possibility of modern, inerrant copies; we will get to that in the next section.
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.