Guest ninhao Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hi Viole How are you? I suggest she is chomping at the bit to have her say, of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted January 10, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,390 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,566 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hi Viole How are you? I suggest she is chomping at the bit to have her say, of course She's a brain child there's no doubt about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ninhao Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 She's a brain child there's no doubt about that! Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 The Earth age argument has nothing to do with the veracity of the Bible. What OEC does challenge is your sensibility. The Bible is fully trustworthy and its purpose is to reveal the nature of God and His relationship with humans. This whining about YEC is no more than parochial dogmatic old school doctrinal Christianity. Wow did I 4 adjectives in one sentence You have many times in the past grabbed at something to side bar to the Gospel message simply because it’s what you do. This is no different. OEC vs. YEC has everything to do with the veracity of the Bible. YEC is based on simply taking God at His word that the days of Genesis 1 are 24 hours long. OEC is based on accepting the claims of science that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and then tailoring an interpretation of the Bible to fit that assumption. Essentially OEC claims place the authority of science above the authority of the Bible. Because it is the Bible that is being conformed to agree with science. The quote shows Mr Spurgeon used Genesis 1: 2 in support of a pre adamic world of life did you read it ? Yes I did read it and he offered no actual exegesis of Gen. 1:2. Yes back then you were debating TE and Viole supported your argument that Genesis was incompatible with TE. That’s the only reason you appreciated her comments. You accepted OEC was possible at that time and now have changed to completely deny it simply because it doesn’t suit your argument against Darwin evolution. You’re actually capitulating to YEC to suit an ulterior motive and I’m realising now how ironic this is considering your slanderous claim against Mr Spurgeon. It does seem you’re parroting Answers in Genesis with this claim of capitulation is this where you accepted the premise? No, I am not parrotting Answers in Genesis, but if they are accusing Spurgeon of capitulating to science in this area, they are correct. That is exactly what he did. You simply cannot get millions of years out of any competent exegesis of Genesis 1. The old earth argument must and does come from outside of Scriptre. The discussion between you and I is concerning OEC not 6 day creation I fail to see why you now wish to push this aside being simply another display of your dishonest debate tactics. The discussion about OEC involves six day creation because OEC rejects a six day creation and advocates for a creative time period comprised not of “days” but of long epochs of time lasting millions of years, each. I have not used any dishonest debate tactics that I can think of. I have not slanderd him at all. My point is that your quote of Spurgeons doesn’t really live up to the claim you made. I was, based on your claims, expectig a quote from Spurgeon about how he could exegetically demonstrate why the earth was old. You said that Spurgeon based his OEC view on what the Bible said and so I was expecting him to discuss that. Rather, what we have is quote of Spurgeon where he mentions the possibility of the earth being millions of years old, but no actual exegesis of that verse. Actually, you’re the one following the approach of the Geocentrists in that you are taking the Bible and trying to make it fit the claims of secular science. Geocentrism was based on trying to make the Bible conform to the science of the day. That isn’t what I am doing. I am rejecting the claims of science and setting the Bible as superior to science and I judge science by the claims of Scripture. My claim is valid and now it’s your turn to ante up unless of course you’re the type of poker player who dodges his turn. As I said above it’s becoming clear to me now that the very argument you’re using against Mr Spurgeon is a type what you have done. You’ve capitulated to YEC and this can be seen in the parroting from AIG. Nope, I am simply conforming to the claims of Scripture. Yes Mr Graham doesn’t think evolution matters and logically OEC will also be allowable to him. Do you claim Mr Graham has capitulated to science by presenting this this view ? Of course I do, if that is truly is position. Now ante up and substantiate your spurious claim against Mr Spurgeon. I’m guessing you will run yet again. When have I ever run from anything? YOU substantiated my claim against Spurgeon. He didn’t offer any Scriptural evidence that the earth is old. You over promised what his statements can actually delivered. Mr Spurgeon and MR Graham evangelised unbelievers in larger numbers than any others in the modern era yet you claim these unbelievers may doubt their sin condition because of OEC. Your claim is obviously false because both these men preached OEC. No, they didn’t “preach” it. Your quotes don’t actually prove that claim. The quote from Billy Graham appears to be musing over his personal opinion. The quote from Spurgeon appears to be made in passing. OEC was not a point in the sermon. He mentiones the possibility of creation being millions of years ago, but it was mentioned in passing and was not the pont of the sermon he was preaching. You’ve proved nothing aside from why you now are vehemently anti OEC. Ironic. I haven’t proven anything because I have made no claims in need of proving. My claims that the Bible supports a young earth have been suppported and pretty much ignored. Of course you run yet again after making spurious claims and you’ve proved me correct in this. I’m surprised you can even write the word retract I haven’t run from anything. I have been here supporting everything I have said when asked. “ Oh is that Shiloh going to the loo again when it’s his ante ? “ Again, I don’t have to prove claims I didn’t make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ninhao Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 shiloh357, on 10 Jan 2014 - 6:24 PM, said: OEC vs. YEC has everything to do with the veracity of the Bible. YEC is based on simply taking God at His word that the days of Genesis 1 are 24 hours long. OEC is based on accepting the claims of science that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and then tailoring an interpretation of the Bible to fit that assumption. Essentially OEC claims place the authority of science above the authority of the Bible. Because it is the Bible that is being conformed to agree with science. You and I aren’t discussing 24 hour day 6 day creation. OEC doesn’t necessarily imply this as you well know and acknowledged in your last post to me. The Bible describes God’s relationship with humans and His plans for us. It doesn’t make any claims of the method or the exact time the creation was performed. Your claims that it does are false. Yes I did read it and he offered no actual exegesis of Gen. 1:2. To gain Mr Spurgeon’s exegesis of Genesis 1:2 you will need to speak to him. I accept that his superior intellect, his gift for exegesis, and his knowledge of all Bible languages allows him the courtesy of you accepting he has allowed OEC with due diligence. You however make the spurious claim he Biblical ignorantly capitulated to science. No, I am not parrotting Answers in Genesis, but if they are accusing Spurgeon of capitulating to science in this area, they are correct. That is exactly what he did. You simply cannot get millions of years out of any competent exegesis of Genesis 1. The old earth argument must and does come from outside of Scriptre. Rubbish. Mr Spurgeon was a great Bible scholar and didn’t sway to secular or religious dogma. I believe Mr Graham is much the same. Your argument is from high browed religious parochialism and nothing more. The discussion about OEC involves six day creation because OEC rejects a six day creation and advocates for a creative time period comprised not of “days” but of long epochs of time lasting millions of years, each. I have not used any dishonest debate tactics that I can think of. You already acknowledged OEC may involve a long period of time before adamic preparation. Why are you now continuing with the 6 x 24 hour days whine? At this time I’m not certain I can trust your integrity. I have not slanderd him at all. My point is that your quote of Spurgeons doesn’t really live up to the claim you made. I was, based on your claims, expectig a quote from Spurgeon about how he could exegetically demonstrate why the earth was old. You said that Spurgeon based his OEC view on what the Bible said and so I was expecting him to discuss that. Rather, what we have is quote of Spurgeon where he mentions the possibility of the earth being millions of years old, but no actual exegesis of that verse. Mr Spurgeon may indeed have an exegetical synopsis of Genesis 1:2 and his reasons for accepting OEC but this isn’t the issue. He quoted Genesis 1:2 in his sermon including OEC and we know of his great intellect and brilliant Bible mind. We also know of his fantastic evangelical record and yet you claim OEC may hinder the unbeliever in accepting their sin condition. Possibly you should allow your Brother Spurgeon the benefit of the doubt that he did exercise exegetical diligence in this matter considering his record, and not slander him. Actually, you’re the one following the approach of the Geocentrists in that you are taking the Bible and trying to make it fit the claims of secular science. Geocentrism was based on trying to make the Bible conform to the science of the day. That isn’t what I am doing. I am rejecting the claims of science and setting the Bible as superior to science and I judge science by the claims of Scripture. The science of the day, in geocentric acceptance days, agreed with the Church and today we see the Church( I've returned to clarify it is a dwindling portion of the Church as in geocentric times ) disagrees with the scientific Earth age question. In Galileo’s time the Church was anti heliocentric and so was science. The Church however argued against the new and correct model, using scripture inappropriately, in the same manner you are now doing in regard to OEC. You shouldn’t be arguing against science using scripture you should be arguing against unbelief. You are stepping outside of your mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ninhao Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 shiloh357, on 10 Jan 2014 - 6:24 PM, said: Nope, I am simply conforming to the claims of Scripture. You’re adding to the Gospel message side bars that you’ve deemed to be “anchor” doctrines. Wake up and smell the violas. Of course I do, if that is truly is position. Mr Graham and Mr Spurgeon are the 2 most prolific evangelists of the modern era and yet you slander them. How do know the process they decided upon in allowing OEC ? I know you highly respect Mr Graham perhaps you shouldn’t pretend to know why he allows OEC. When have I ever run from anything? YOU substantiated my claim against Spurgeon. He didn’t offer any Scriptural evidence that the earth is old. You over promised what his statements can actually delivered. You constantly throw up accusations against the Brethren and then fail to provide evidence. There is no evidence to suggest Mr Spurgeon or Mr Graham capitulated to science in allowing OEC. Can you provide this evidence or will you yet again hide? I will be here defending their integrity so long as slanderers, such as you, accuse them. No, they didn’t “preach” it. Your quotes don’t actually prove that claim. The quote from Billy Graham appears to be musing over his personal opinion. The quote from Spurgeon appears to be made in passing. OEC was not a point in the sermon. He mentiones the possibility of creation being millions of years ago, but it was mentioned in passing and was not the pont of the sermon he was preaching. Now I must accept your definition of how Mr Spurgeon and Mr Graham allowed OEC ? Mr Spurgeon included his allowance of OEC in sermon 30 and the fact stands that they both accepted OEC and they are the most prolific evangelists of the modern era. I haven’t proven anything because I have made no claims in need of proving. My claims that the Bible supports a young earth have been suppported and pretty much ignored. I haven’t run from anything. I have been here supporting everything I have said when asked. You’ve accused Mr Surgeon and Mr Graham of capitulating to science without giving due exegetical diligence. Will you now provide the evidence for this or continue to avoid placing your ante ? Man up Shiloh and stop running from your responsibility to prove your accusations. Again, I don’t have to prove claims I didn’t make. You made the claim that Mr Graham and Mr Spurgeon capitulated to science and that their acceptance of OEC may hinder the unbeliever in accepting their sin condition. Do you now retract these accusations ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.85 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2014 I say this to caution you, when discussing controversial topics be it this one or any one) , sometimes guys forget their higher calling to love, in order to win an argument. You have been warned! Spock out How about an arm wrestle you to see if you're correct That would probably not be fair. I'm a chiseled well defined exercise machine. You don't really want any, do you? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ninhao Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 That would probably not be fair. I'm a chiseled well defined exercise machine. You don't really want any, do you? Lol My nickname has been Popeye considering the amplitude of my forearms so maybe we will be evenly matched Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted January 10, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think there are some differences of opinion about what it means to take a passage of Scripture "literally", but I actually agree with yours. I have always called it "taking it at face value" but we are talking about the same thing, just calling it something different. "Face value" is not literal interpretation. Face value is a very wooden approach to the text. For example... when Jesus said, "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off." The face value approach doesn't take into account the metaphorical nature of that comment. A face value approach would understand Jesus to be advocating self-mutilation. The literal interpretation is that we need to "cut off" anything in our lives (habits, thoughts, associations) that is hindering our walk with God. Going by this meaning of a taking passage of Scripture "literally", I would they say that I take Genesis 1 literally. The author literally meant long extended periods of time. The words chosen by the author can be used to convey that meaning. Good to know we both take the bible literally That is not correct. The word "yom" is NEVER used to mean long periods of time in terms of millions of years in an historical narrative anywhere in the Bible. The word yom in connection with ordinal numbers in Genesis are always literal 24 hour days in historical narratives in the Bible. There may be other genres like prophecy where it is used to refer to longer periods of times, but Genesis 1 is an historical narrative, not a prophecy. There is not ONE figurative device used in the text of Genesis 1. So treating "yom" as a long period of time isn't interpetation, at all. It amounts to reading into the text what you want it to mean. If God wanted us to understand a each creative unit in Genesis 1 to refer to a long epoch of time comprised of millions of years, he would have likely used the word "olam" instead of "yom." The word "olam" refers to long periods of time. It literally means the most distant time. Yom is NEVER used to convey anything but a literal day in an historical narrative genres. Actually, Olam means "King of the Universe; such as, "Baruch ata, ADONAI Eloheinu, Malekh ha'Olam", meaning "Blessed art thou, O L-rd, our G-d, King of the Universe" However, " yom" can mean more than a 24 hour period, depending on how it is used. Literally, a day, sunset to sunrise or figuratively, a space of time, age, required season, perpetually, old, etc. Really depends on how it is being used. Not always as a 24 hour period. I believe in these passages it refers to the 24 hour period, but only as a recreation as a result of chaos and rebellion, not as the initial creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Actually, Olam means "King of the Universe; such as, "Baruch ata, ADONAI Eloheinu, Malekh ha'Olam", meaning "Blessed art thou, O L-rd, our G-d, King of the Universe" No, that is wrong. "Olam" has several different meanings depending on context (Universe, world, forever, eternity and is often used to denate very long periods of time. The word "Melekh" is the word for king. Melekh haolam is a phrase that is often rendered as "King of the universe." However, " yom" can mean more than a 24 hour period, depending on how it is used. Literally, a day, sunset to sunrise or figuratively, a space of time, age, required season, perpetually, old, etc. Really depends on how it is being used. Not always as a 24 hour period. I believe in these passages it refers to the 24 hour period, but only as a recreation as a result of chaos and rebellion, not as the initial creation. What we are interested in is how itis used in Genesis 1. Hebrew is a language with only about 8,700 words and so many of the words play double duty, triple duty and so on. The Hebrew word "echad" has over 18 different possible usages. So we are interested not in how yom is used everywhere else. The focus of this thread is the use of yom in Genesis 1. There is no evidence that this is a recreation and the Hebrew grammar will not allow for this to be a recreation in Genesis 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts