Sheniy

Have you not read any of my posts in this thread? I've been agreeing with you, Enoch!! (mostly lol) When someone challenged the names in Genesis 5, I tried to defend it. I failed, but that says more of my lack of knowledge in Hebrew than any problem with the actual meanings. Honestly, I think this stuff is fascinating. All I was saying here was that we need to be careful not to take it too far. Truce?

No, I just proved that they don't know Hebrew nor are they skilled at Exegesis or hermeneutics. No, you proved nothing. You don't even know what I'm talking about. In fact your arguments showed a clear lack of understanding on the subject, so forgive me if I don't defer to your judgment. And, like I said, it was already discussed in depth. No point in bringing it up again. Bring it up just long enough to falsely accuse me and then withdraw it because you suddenly don't want to bring up??? LOL, Whatever helps you sleep at night... So typical of people who don't have a cogent or meaningful argument to make. 1. I told you from the beginning I didn't want to elaborate. You were the one who wouldn't let it go. 2. What exactly did I falsely accuse you of? 3. You can whine all you want. I'm still not telling.

I actually do agree with this. It's fascinating, but we do need to be careful not to add to the Bible what isn't intended. Yeah like adding 4.5 billion years to the age of the earth and callling it "biblical." Claims that there was a pre-adamite earth that existed before our earth was created, Claims that sin and death exisited before Adam and claiming that to be "biblical. "Hi kettle, my name is pot and you're black." Exactly. Not sure where the pot and kettle reference comes from, as I've never made such claims. Personally, I think the bible is vague enough about the details of how God created the world (and other things) that any perspective is just speculation. I'm perfectly fine with speculating, as long as I don't claim it as fact. You can tell me I'm wrong again, Shiloh, but it won't change my opinion.

I actually do agree with this. It's fascinating, but we do need to be careful not to add to the Bible what isn't intended.

No, I just proved that they don't know Hebrew nor are they skilled at Exegesis or hermeneutics. No, you proved nothing. You don't even know what I'm talking about. In fact your arguments showed a clear lack of understanding on the subject, so forgive me if I don't defer to your judgment. And, like I said, it was already discussed in depth. No point in bringing it up again.

What about Methuselah? I'd heard somewhere that his name referenced the coming flood.

Agree to disagree? Because I disagree. (I think I've seen you disagree with this, as well, but I can't remember where) If we can't agree on the correct meaning of english, how in the world are we going to agree on Ancient Hebrew? And I agree the bible isn't a science book. It's...you know, never mind. Arguing this with you is a lost cause. lol Still, that would only apply if you think you're infallible. You don't, do you? And by the way, I overlook offensive comments from you all the time. When I suggested your post seemed condescending, that was an understatement. You ripped my testimony apart, then made several implications about my intelligence. I was actually really offended, but I was trying to assume innocence on your part. I held my tongue. Many of your posts, at least in this part of the boards, which is, I think, why people get so angry here. Kindness is a fruit of the Spirit, you know. (Note: I am not saying that you're the only one with this attitude. You're just the only one who gets away with it...) Not gonna share this, sorry. I have good reasons for not doing so. 1. This was a personal (as in unique) experience. I don't think it will necessarily have the same effect on others that it did on me, in fact, I've seen it discussed here already. It was a favorite verse of mine (still is) before my faith shattered. It was the context and connection to YEC that made me question, not just the validity of the bible, but the character of God. Without YEC, IMHO, this issue is resolved. 2. I don't want it to break anyone else's faith. Based on your testimony, YEC is a pillar holding your faith up, or plugging the hole in your shield left by OEC. There may be others who feel the same way. When my faith in YEC shattered, I almost walked away. I don't want to be the one to do that to someone else. 3. You're just going to tell me I'm wrong, anyway. This specific issue was already discussed in a different thread. I've seen your arguments against it, and all you really did basically was imply everyone was stupid. Sorry, but no thanks. This is just plain wrong. Yeah, that sounds similar to what I went through. Except I held on to the Bible because of my "irrational, emotional attachment" to it. Haha. I had no problem in the classroom. Yeah, they raised questions sometimes, but I would usually go to the Bible or a Christian leader to see what they said about it. And I'd pray. Because I trusted God, I'd take it to him. What more is anyone supposed to do? (Don't insult my intelligence, again, please.)

This looked like a challenge! 1. Adam (Hebrew Edom) Meaning: man, mankind, "ruddy (skin)" 2. Seth (Hebrew Sheth) Meaning: Compensation Although in Gen 4:25, it looks like his name is a variation of the word shiyth, which means appoint or set 3. Enosh (hebrew 'Enowsh) Meaning: Man From similar word meaning mortal man, mankind 4. Kenan (hebrew Qeynan) Meaning: possession From another word meaning nest...not sure how they got sorrow out of this 5. Mahalalel (hebrew Mahalal'el) Meaning: boast/praise of God Also: mouthful (just kidding ) 6. Jared (hebrew Yered) Meaning: descent from the word yared meaning to go down 7. Enoch (Hebrew Chanack) Meaning: dedicated from the word chanak meaning to train, dedicate 8. Methuselah (hebrew Mĕthuwshelach) Meaning: Man of the dart ??? 9. Lamech (Hebrew Lemek) Meaning: Powerful 10: Noah (Hebrew Noach) Meaning: rest Hmm. I really thought this was true. It's close, but not quite. Anyone else have any input? What was your source? We agree on Kenan, but this one only gives dedicated for Enoch http://www.behindthename.com/name/enoch I've used that site before, but this is probably better for determining meaning in the bible. (Not the best, I'm sure, but I like it ) Names are often derived from different words. For example, Sheth came from shiyth, which means to appoint. The intended meaning is clear in the bible for this one. For Enoch, it seems to be similar. Check out the root word of Enoch in that link I posted. The name likely derived from this verb. That's what I figure, anyway.

You...realize I was trying to agree with you, right? I <3 Chuck Missler stuff. Anyway, did Shiloh post an explanation, or did he just say "Yes, they're right."? Because I'd be curious to see an explanation for the names I couldn't figure out. No pressure or anything. I just really want this to be real. I know that when names are given, there is usually an explanation and a meaning (see Seth). And I've heard that Methuselah's name was actually prophetic of the timing of the flood (he died right before). I can't see it in the text, though.

This looked like a challenge! 1. Adam (Hebrew Edom) Meaning: man, mankind, "ruddy (skin)" 2. Seth (Hebrew Sheth) Meaning: Compensation Although in Gen 4:25, it looks like his name is a variation of the word shiyth, which means appoint or set 3. Enosh (hebrew 'Enowsh) Meaning: Man From similar word meaning mortal man, mankind 4. Kenan (hebrew Qeynan) Meaning: possession From another word meaning nest...not sure how they got sorrow out of this 5. Mahalalel (hebrew Mahalal'el) Meaning: boast/praise of God Also: mouthful (just kidding ) 6. Jared (hebrew Yered) Meaning: descent from the word yared meaning to go down 7. Enoch (Hebrew Chanack) Meaning: dedicated from the word chanak meaning to train, dedicate 8. Methuselah (hebrew Mĕthuwshelach) Meaning: Man of the dart ??? 9. Lamech (Hebrew Lemek) Meaning: Powerful 10: Noah (Hebrew Noach) Meaning: rest Hmm. I really thought this was true. It's close, but not quite. Anyone else have any input?

In literary analysis, when we speak of "literal," we are talking about reading a text as literature. We are taking into account everything about the text, it genre, cultural idioms, the peripheral/immediate historical context (if applicable), language, figures of speech, etc. These things all play into a literal reading of the text, where they occur in the text. To take a text literally from a literary standpoint, means to analyze the text and lead out the meaning the author wants us to have. (snip) My definition is actually well understood among those who understand hermeneutics, which are the rules of literary analysis. (snip) People often confuse "literal" with "face-value." They often think of those two as the same thing. The face value approach would take Jesus' comment about being "the door" and assign Jesus a set of hinges and a door knob. The literal approach understands the metaphorical character of the phrase. Hyper-literal is the same as face-value. Face value is a wooden approach to the text and is often employed by people who think they are using a "literal" approach. That is the reason, at least in part, for the misunderstanding. I don't think changing the words we use will do any good. What needs to happen is that people need to realize that in the literary world, word usage trumps word meaning and sometimes words are used in a way that doesn't follow the dictionary/lexical definitions. Just trying to make things a little bit clearer. I just think it's a little ironic that we're arguing the literal meaning of the word literal so I can discover the correct interpretation of your post on interpretations.

How do you define inerrancy? Is this another word we disagree on the meaning of? lol This seems to sum it up nicely: From wikipedia entry on "inerrancy" (emphasis mine) I didn't accuse anyone. My whole point was that Saul, a student of Scripture, was not infallible. That was it. If there is a parallel in there (which was unintended, by the way), it only applies to someone who thinks they're infallible. I honestly did not mean to offend. What is it that you think shattered your shield of faith? How did believing the Bible to be literally true serve to be a detriment to your Christian life? Here's that word literal, again. I'm going to use different terms just to keep it straight in my head, ok? Believing the Bible as intended by the author (shiloh-literal) wasn't the problem. The problem was that YEC was getting in the way. I had prioritized it too highly, so when it came under attack (usually by my own logical reasoning), my whole faith shook. It was build into my Shield and was the weakest part, therefore most subject to attack by the enemy. When my faith in YEC finally cracked (and it was a bible verse that did it), my faith in the rest of the bible went with it. because they were so inextricably tied together, one tiny doctrine pulled my whole faith over the edge. And all of that was because you dared to believe the Bible was true, as written? And suddenly when you lacked the ability to answer the challenges to your faith, it was the fault of the YEC model? You seem a bit condescending here. My answer is the same as above. But the fact that you couldn't defend the YEC model, speaks more to your lack of skill to answer the challenges to it, and not to the fact that it is indefensible or that it is wrong. I'd been defending YEC since I was six. I was defending it in the classroom, on the internet, and with my friends. If there was an argument I couldn't counter, I'd go find the answers. I had AiG bookmarked. I read book after book on YEC and Noah's Flood. But there were a few things that nagged at me. I realized that my biggest opponent in YEC was myself. I didn't drop YEC because I "lacked the skill to answer the challenges", it was because I didn't agree with their arguments. There is a difference. Also, I didn't say it was wrong. I just said I let it go. My official position on the age of the earth: I don't have an official position. I don't know exactly what happened. I wasn't there. If I do seem pushy about it, it's more the exclusivity of YEC than the model itself. I've dealt with that way to often in the church concerning minor doctrines. I know you believe it is a major doctrine and that your attitude is justified. This is just another area where we'll have to agree to disagree. Wow, really?! I can see why you'd have problems with OEC. Thanks for sharing your perspective. So...just curious. What brought you over the fence to YEC? I've found this true as well.

See, I agree with all of this. I'm thinking there's a communication issue somewhere. If you don't mind, I'm going to break down what you said in a previous post to further understand what you were trying to say. Because I want to understand, honestly. Definition of "Literal" (A) from the Dictionary adj. in exact accordance with or limited to the primary or explicit meaning of a word or text; not figurative or symbolic in any way (B) Shiloh's meaning adj. determined meaning and intent of the original author of the text I couldn't find this specific meaning of "literal" in the dictionary. The closest thing I could find was this article on Biblical Literalism from Wikipedia. This seems to sum up the definition nicely: "The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text. Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor)." So, Shiloh, I understand that in the case of Genesis 1, you see these two distinct definitions as basically the same thing. The author's intent (definition B) was the explicit meaning of the text (definition A). What I'm unclear on is how you handle portions of the bible that are clearly meant to be interpreted as figurative or as a parable. We'll use John 10:7 as an example. I know we've been over this, but please bear with me. If we interpret this in context with the rest of the chapter, it is clear that Jesus is not saying that he is an actual door. So, using definition A, we can say that the first half of this verse is literal, the second half is not. It is figurative. And according to definition B, this would be correct as well, since that is clearly the intent of the author. Am I right so far? This is where I get confused: (shiloh quote part 1) Here, you are clearly using definition B "literal" to refer to the meaning and intent of the author. (shiloh quote part 2) But here, it seems your definition of literal has changed to refer to definition A. I suppose technically both could apply since that is what you believe for those chapters. But in the context of this post, it seems like you're using "literal" to mean "not figurative", especially since you use the words "metaphor", "Symbolic" as a comparison. You seem to use both definitions interchangeably in Genesis. I'm just saying...it's confusing. Especially since your definition of literal is not commonly accepted, and is therefore misunderstood. I know there are a few times when you've misunderstood someone who used literal differently. People misunderstand you all the time, it seems. Is there a word we can use instead of "literal" for one of the definitions above? I've tried suggesting hyper-literal for definition A and/or shiloh-literal for definition B, just for some clarity on these boards, but it didn't stick. lol They do harm the integrity of Scripture when they are assigned to the text by the reader. Any interpretation of any text includes things "assigned by the reader". That is the nature of interpretation. (please keep reading before you accuse me of something) I agree with you that there is only one correct interpretation of a passage. (Maybe...? What about Prophecy, for example, which is usually secondary to the initial meaning of the prophetic text. A passage can be just a psalm until the prophecy came to pass, then it was interpreted to be also a prophecy. Is that two interpretations, or one interpretation with two meanings...? ). I also agree with you that the only correct interpretation is the one intended by the author. If a reader ignores things that were intended to be major or assigns importance to things that should be minor, that is wrong. However, if two different readers read the same passage and come to different conclusions about the true interpretation, how do they know which is right? Both believe they are correct, obviously. Both are seeking the author's intent. Who has the truth? You feel like I'm ignoring important parts of Genesis 1. I believe you're assigning greater importance to things that were intended to be non-issues. I believe you're adding, you believe I'm taking away. But both of us are honestly and respectfully looking for the author's intent. Can't we just agree to disagree?

The trouble I had with this is I probably wouldn't recognize a Synecdoche in Genesis if it sank it's teeth into me (that's an anthropomorphism!). I'm not a former Hebrew slave living in the time of Moses, so I likely wouldn't recognize their figures of speech. Also, naturally, our modern figures of speech likely wouldn't appear in ancient Hebrew text. (right?) I thought I did pretty well for my limited experience with Hebrew. I give me an A for effort. Now that was hilarious!! Yes, we were looking for Rhetorical Devices in Genesis 1 to prove it wasn't a Historic Narrative. But...I believe it is an historical narrative...lol. Oh well. It was a fun exercise. And I learned what synecdoche means, so not entirely fruitless.

LOL that is just ridiculous. Animals don't speak. Speaking is uniquely human; we use words and communicate ideas, thoughts and information Dogs and cats do not "speak." Stop being absurd. The person grasping at straws is you. So...the serpent in the garden is figurative? What about Balaam's donkey?

I guess what is needed is an understanding on what the nature of "interpretation" is. (snip 3 paragraphs that are basically redundant) So, from the stanpoint of an objective activity like exegesis, the ONLY possible interpretation of a text is the meaning the author gives to it. I am to read the text in the light of the object the author has in view. So, interpretation is ALWAYS about find the literal meaning of the text. To do that means I need to take into account the context, cultural idioms, figures of speech and so and so forth, and look for the literal meaning behind those devices. Question: Here, you use "literal" specifically to mean author's intent, and not word for word face value (unless intended by the author), right? That's what I'm getting from the context. It's hard to tell with you, sometimes. lol If so, I agree with this. The doctrine of creation is the source of our other doctrines. Genesis 1-3 is seedbed for most, if not all, major Bible doctrines. The doctrines of sin and it origin, marriage, judgement, salvation, shedding of blood for remission of sins, the sovereignty of God, the incommunicable attributes of God, the redemptive Nature of God, the Word of God, eternal life, and so many others all have their origins in the very beginning right back to the first two or three chapters of the Bible. The first Messianic Prophecy is found right there at the very beginning of the book of Genesis. That makes creation a very important doctrine, indeed. Genesis 1-3 provides us with an explanation for why redemption is necessary and why Jesus had to come to earth and die for our sins. I agree with all of this. Question: In this section, do you mean "literal" as in author's intent or as in word for word face value? I mean, I know technically you believe both, but which are you referring to in this section? In context, it seems you are referring to a face value meaning specifically, since you mention metaphors and such. If so, I disagree. I don't think seeing metaphors and symbolism in Genesis does any harm whatsoever to any doctrines (other than YEC) or the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture. Note: that is not me saying that I believe Genesis is a fairytale or fiction or anything. I believe it actually happened. Just likely not word for word. And I don't believe it was intended by the author to be read that way. By the way, I don't recall anyone here saying the Fall in Genesis didn't happen. I agree with this wholeheartedly. As someone who has sat on that fence, let me just testify about this a bit. YEC was a crack in my Shield. It held for a long time, but eventually it fell apart. Actually, it shattered. Once my Shield broke, the rest of my Armor didn't last long. I didn't pick up the pieces immediately. I considered walking away for good, leaving the broken shards of my faith behind. I almost did. It is entirely by the Grace of God that I didn't. For awhile, I wandered. On the surface, I was still a Christian, but underneath...well, Jesus was just a nice guy. I liked the idea of him. Plus, there was Pascal's Wager (selfish reason), and...I didn't want to make my mom cry. On the other hand, there were some issues with YEC that I couldn't resolve logically/biblically, therefore Christianity didn't make any sense. I wanted to believe. I sooo wanted to believe. I even prayed to the God I no longer had faith in not to let me go. I was barely hanging on by a thread. I can honestly say this as someone approaching Christianity without faith in the inerrancy of the Bible that one major thing holding me back was the required belief in a young earth and/or 6 day creation. I'd been defending it since I was six years old (I told someone that dinosaurs didn't exist because they weren't in the bible, lol). I couldn't defend it anymore. I didn't believe it. One day, I listened to a podcast by a couple of Christian guys who defended the old earth position. It was one I'd never considered before, because I was afraid if I'd honestly considered any position other then YEC, my faith would crumble (which happened anyway...). If I had listened to them before I'd lost my faith, I would have rejected what they said without a second thought. Probably scoffed and rolled my eyes, as well. Now, though, I had nothing to lose. I was so spiritually bankrupt that I listened with rapt attention. They were making sense. I went back to where I left the shards of my Shield, and started picking them up. Inerrancy of Scripture, Godhood of Jesus, Salvation through Grace, these I grabbed first. The weaker parts, the pieces that were irreparably damaged, I left behind. I gave the remaining pieces to God and he forged a new Shield, a stronger Shield. Couple things about this: 1. Because of my experiences, this area is sort of a sore spot for me. If I seem obsessive, this is why. 2. This is an historical narrative (autobiographical). Notice that there are a few analogies/metaphors/symbolism throughout, yet the entire narrative is still historically accurate. Just throwing that out there... Yeah, so if we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture we are like the apostle Paul who murdered Christians??? Who is calling anyone a heretic?? No need to resort to the martyr/victim card. That's what people do when they don't have solid argument to present. They pretend that opposition to their position amounts to persecution. It is an emotional and manipulative tactic. What? I... Wow...you so completely missed my point that I'm not even going to comment. Okay, yes I will. My point with Saul was that he thought he knew the truth but was wrong. He was a student of Scripture. And he was wrong. And I didn't say anything about the inerrancy of Scripture. I hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, so I don't understand why you added that... No one is claiming personal infallbility. What we are proclaiming is the infalliblitiy of Scripture. The whole jab at people like me, accusing me claiming infallbility is a way deflecting away from the fact that you don't really have a substantive response to the OP. So far, no one has really responded to the substance of the claims in the OP. All they can do attack me as if I think I am infallible just so they can have something to knock down because the OP makes an airtight case and they cannot bring themselves to admit it. Did someone mention the martyr/victim card? I feel like I struck a nerve. I will back away slowly, now...

There's a quote box limit? Good to know! lol The Most important Doctrine IMHO is Salvation. Having all the Death/Disease/Thorns (Fossils) before Adam sinned Compromises it @ the Very Core.....No way around it, IMHO. First part of your reply I agree with. Second part, though...what if it didn't? What if there was a way around it without compromising the most important doctrines? Would you honestly consider it with an open mind? I'm not trying to convince you to change your doctrines. Only to be more accepting of others who believe essentially the same thing as you but disagree on this one point. For example, my mother is YEC. We've reached the point now where she no longer whacks me with the bible every time we discuss Genesis. That is all I'm asking for. lol We don't Save, GOD does. God is notorious for using his people to accomplish His work. We are the tools in His toolbox. (Otherwise, what would be the point of evangelism?) But I agree completely that credit for salvation goes to God. Coulda fooled me! I think I agree with you on this. But it wasn't my point at all. The part that was my point you didn't reply to...(seems to happen quite often on this board...) Definition of synecdoche (right?): A figure of speech in which a part ("ruddy skin") is used to represent the whole ("man") or the whole for a part ("man/Adam" is actually sort of plural, as in "mankind") Again, not using this to prove anything (I'm probably wrong, anyway). I didn't know what a synecdoche was yesterday. I just rose to your challenge of trying to find a synecdoche in Genesis 1. It was kind of fun. Honestly, I've forgotten the point of the exercise. Why did I need to find a rhetorical device again?

I was just going to post this in a different thread! I've seen this exact image before. Chuck Missler, right? Good stuff! Never mind.

I agree, to a point. There is enough in Scripture regarding Basic Truths and Absolute Truth that can be known. We are also admonished to...... (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Agreed. It seems that what we disagree on is what exactly are the Basic and Absolute Truths that can be known. Specifically, is YEC the only possible interpretation of Gen 1. That would depend on which argument(s) you are referring to. There are some Doctrines in Scripture, that if compromised, challenge the Integrity of the Whole. Agreed. Here, again, our area of contention seems to be which doctrines are vitally important to the integrity of Scripture. By the way, I used to agree with you 100% on the necessity of YEC as the foundation of the Word of God. Now I believe it is a possible interpretation, and that there are other possible interpretations out there that don't compromise Scripture in any way, but might open the doors for those who are seeking God but can't accept YEC as legit. At the end of the day, isn't saving the lost sheep more important than winning arguments? Agreed x10! Although, just because some scientists have an agenda (including YEC scientists), doesn't mean the whole of scientific discovery should be dismissed. And since you often post scientific evidence that proves the "agenda" you agree with, I'll assume you agree. Again, careful with Equivocations. I guess I don't understand your point here. There are no Inquisitions or Crusades in our recent past, but that doesn't mean our hands don't have blood on them. And our doctrines are a mess! We, as a body, are nowhere near infallible. To claim otherwise is the highest level of arrogance and hubris. (And this is altogether a different topic.) But I can give another example. There was a man who lived some time ago, really smart Jewish guy. Prodigy of Scripture. He heard about a group of heretics or apostates, and focused his energies on 'correcting' this problem. Until Jesus smacked him upside the head and said "Saul, why do you persecute Me?" (true story) My point is this: You and I (and any believer who has ever lived) are not infallible. If someone wants to come to Jesus ('cause, you know, He's the Door. haha ), but they don't agree with all of our minor pet doctrines, who are we to stand in their way? (And yes, YEC is a minor doctrine. Like I said elsewhere, it's not a hill to die on.) Not overtly or specifically but their beliefs and comments as noted on these forums leave very little doubt where they stand, IMHO. I see you clipped out the rest of my statement, which went on to explain a bit further. If someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of the bible, that doesn't mean they don't believe the bible is 100% God-breathed Truth. Unless...you believe you're infallible...? There are over 200 Rhetorical Devices in Scripture (Metaphors, Allegories, Similes, Types, Idioms, Synechdoche's, et al) and are very easily identified and differentiated from Historical Narrative. (2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." There are ZERO Rhetorical Devices in Genesis 1. If you think there is....please Identify Specifically. So I took this as a personal challenge. Bible study time! My comprehension of Hebrew is rudimentary (and I rely heavily on Strong's), but the closest thing I could find to a Synechdoche is the fact that Adam's name refers to his skin color (probably), and also the fact that the name can also mean mankind/humanity. This is symbolic of the fact that the fall of Man (literally Adam) affects humanity as a whole. Not that it proves anything. Historical Narratives can use Rhetorical Devices, as well, I believe. I don't know. I'm sort of afraid that if I post what I've discovered, someone will report it as a violation of the TOS. There was another post on this board that did exactly what you're asking. It's been deleted twice, and I still don't understand why. Makes me wonder, though. There have been plenty of other biblical examples of rhetorical and literary devices that linked Gen 1 to many other parts of Scripture. Each one has been summarily ignored, dismissed, or deleted. So...Why should I go through the trouble of providing this information if it isn't even considered?

I was being Facetious Did you notice the smiley face? I did. It's just...I saw the title and assumed it would be a fair, honest take from both sides. Guess I was just disappointed.

Unbiased? Really? Your post was drowning in bias. I'm all for you giving evidence of the bible, but at least be honest about where your opinions lie.

It's a good lesson for all of us.

This is an excellent point that seem to get forgotten here.

[Ecc 3:11] He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. I don't think we were ever intended to know for sure. When we get to heaven, and God reveals to us the specific details of how everything came to be, I think we will all be blown away by how amazing and awesome He really is. This whole argument will seem trivial (and kind of silly) in comparison. Just my personal opinion. That is likely true. I believe this can also be said of any theory, including Young Earth Creationism. I have felt that irrational emotional connection myself. It cannot be proven, and therefore requires faith, just like evolution and any theories in between. So...you're saying we should go back to Geo-centrism? The Church held to that for quite awhile (some even today), after scientific evidence suggested it was not true. But we all know that, throughout history, the Church has been infallible in her teachings of Scripture.[/sarcasm] Eventually, the Church (erm...most of it) accepted that Geo-centrism was false based on scientific observations and evidence, even though Geo-centrism makes more sense theologically. The Church realized that these scientific discoveries didn't undermine Scripture, just changed our perspective of a tiny part of it. What science brings into question are the previously held, man-made doctrines that some in the church are too emotionally invested in to possibly reconsider. I believe that many of the people that you are debating with here believe that the Word of God is inspired (God-breathed) and 100% truth. (If you agree, say "aye!") I am pretty sure nobody here is suggesting that science trumps the Word of God. Only that when new information is revealed, the Scriptures might be reexamined. Not changed or revised or rejected. Not compromised. Reexamining the Scriptures in this way requires three things: 1. Extensive study of the Word to ensure that the original Message (Gospel) stays intact 2. Humility to admit when we're wrong (believe me, it's not easy!) 3. Prayer unceasing We're all Truth-seekers here. No, Why would God curse Adam with death if death was already present? The precursor ot physical death is disease and physical decay, atrophy. How would that be a suitable curse if it was alreay part of the experience? If death was in the earth and Adam was already subject to it, to curse Adam with what was already going to happen to Him makes absolutely no sense. You know, this idea was something I hadn't even considered until I started posting here (I've never even heard of the Gap Theory 'til now). I know I didn't really flesh out this idea very well, so I'm going to try again. First, though, I need to find the post where I originally considered this idea. That thread is almost 20 pages already, so I'll have to come back to this. Okay, here's the problem with this. You are breaking down the original Hebrew text to explain what the words are saying at face value (I have heard this called hyper-literal). This doesn't convince anyone who believes that this isn't the way the author intended it to be read (what I like to call shiloh-literal ). Kind of like the "Jesus is a door" point made in that other thread. If I broke down the Greek word to prove to you that Jesus is made of oak and not mahogany, and has a brass doorknob, you would reject my entire argument based on the fact that you don't interpret that verse to mean that Jesus is an actual, physical door. There is a deeper meaning to the passage. I believe the same argument holds for Gen 1.

Anyone know why clb's post on the Holy of Holies and the Temple was removed? I thought there was some interesting points in there. And some verses I wanted to check out. Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. I form the light, and create darkness http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/isaiah-45-7.html Natural light, or that light which was produced at the first creation, and of which the sun is the fountain and source; or day which is light, and night which is darkness, the constant revolutions of which were formed, appointed, and are continued by the Lord, ( Genesis 1:3-5 ) ( 8:22 ) , moral light, or the light of nature, the rational understanding in man; spiritual light, or the light of grace, by which things spiritual and supernatural are known; the light of joy and comfort from Christ, the sun of righteousness; and the light of eternal glory and happiness: this is all from God, of his producing and giving; and so darkness is his creature; that natural darkness which was upon the face of the earth at the beginning; what arises from the absence of the sun, or is occasioned by the eclipses of it, or very black clouds; or any extraordinary darkness, such as was in Egypt; or deprivation of sight, blindness in men; and, in a figurative sense, ignorance and darkness that follow upon sin; judicial blindness, God gives men up and leaves them to; temporal afflictions and distresses, and everlasting punishment, which is blackness of darkness: I make peace, and create evil; peace between God and men is made by Christ, who is God over all; spiritual peace of conscience comes from God, through Christ, by the Spirit; eternal glory and happiness is of God, which saints enter into at death; peace among the saints themselves here, and with the men of the world; peace in churches, and in the world, God is the author of, even of all prosperity of every kind, which this word includes: "evil" is also from him; not the evil of sin; this is not to be found among the creatures God made; this is of men, though suffered by the Lord, and overruled by him for good: but the evil of punishment for sin, God's sore judgments, famine, pestilence, evil beasts, and the sword, or war, which latter may more especially be intended, as it is opposed to peace; this usually is the effect of sin; may be sometimes lawfully engaged in; whether on a good or bad foundation is permitted by God; moreover, all afflictions, adversities, and calamities, come under this name, and are of God; see ( Job 2:10 ) ( Amos 3:6 ) : I the Lord do all these things; and therefore must be the true God, and the one and only one. Kimchi, from Saadiah Gaon, observes, that this is said against those that assert two gods, the one good, and the other evil; whereas the Lord is the Maker of good and evil, and therefore must be above all; and it is worthy of observation, that the Persian Magi, before Zoroastres F13, held two first causes, the one light, or the good god, the author of all good; and the other darkness, or the evil god, the author of all evil; the one they called Oromazes, the other Arimanius; and, as Dr. Prideaux F14 observes, I think it's interesting that 'light' also signifies truth and morality while 'darkness' is also the lack of them. The word "choshek" can mean "death", as well, and it's opposite in this verse, " 'owr", can also mean "light of life". Same word for 'light' as in Gen 1:3. It is...illuminating. Haha. Also interesting: our two favorite hebrew words "bara'" and "'asah" are both in this verse. Twice. I have no agenda in pointing this out. I just thought it was interesting.