The Distant Starlight Problem

[Shar]

 

 

 

I wouldnt be surprised to know it was a YEC proponent who posted some slanderous remark about one NIV translator being a homosexual just to discredit the entire work by the group of 150 language experts.

It's not a slanderous remark. It's only slander when it isn't true.   Both of the homosexuals on the NIV team were openly gay.  They made no secret of it.  And one of them was the chariman on the OT translation team.

Link please.. Let me try to go to the source of this allegation and examine it for myself.

 

http://www.soulwinning.info/bible/niv/homo.htm

 

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/Sodomite-HomosexualChairmanNIVOTCommittee.htm

 

The first article by Stewart is a joke.  He references the Doctor as a homosexual, then states, "Is it any wonder that "sodomite, fornicator and effeminate" are not used in the NIV?  Stewart obviously holds to the lesser accurate old King James Version of the Bible. 

 

The Hebrew word for "sodomite" is "qadesh" and best translates as "shrine male prostitute". 

 

The Greek words for "fornication" is "Porneia", which best translates to "harlotry, adultery, incest" and;

the word "Porneno", which best translates to " unlawful lust for both sexes, commit fornication, use figuratively, as in idolatry. 

 

The Greek word for "effeminate" is "Malakos" which best translated to " homosexual offender".  The NIV used the best translation for the exact meaning of the words in the given text, instead of the King James' overuse and improper use of sodomite, fornicator and effeminate.

 

His line of defective reasoning absolutely escapes any rational person's sense of logic.  Mr. Stewart's emotional ranting is seen as incredulous.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Shar

[Shar]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The NIV and other translations do translate it as "possibly became".  Definitely room for argument.

No, they don't translate it that way.   In the margins of some NIV Bibles they claim that "was" can mean "became," and they are right.  In certain contexts it can mean, "became."  But when given a choice, they translated the actual text correctly as "was."   They knew that "became" simply didn't work in Gen. 1:2.

A footnote is to give the reader additional information specifically about the given word and how it is used in the given sentence.  By simple definition, in all cases, a footnote cites a reference for a designated part of the text.  It is not used to simply give possible meanings of the word, if used in some other context.  Other translations, including their footnotes, want the reader to be fully aware that the word "was" can mean "became" in Ge. 1:2.  "the earth became formless and void..".

 

Wow, Shiloh, now I know you will go to no end to fit in your YEC model.  The translators are letting the reader know that the use of "was" cannot be simply translated to mean the current or present state of condition.  Instead, they are saying that it could have become in that condition after Ge.1:1

You need to understand what translators mean when they say a word "CAN" be translated a certain way.   In Hebrew, a word can have several usages, but only ONE of them applies to a given context.   In other words the word ha-ya in Gen. 1:2 can only have ONE usage. It cannot mean both "was" and "became" simultaneously.  

 

When they translators of the NIV had to make a choice, they didn't choose "became."   Ha-ya was tranlsated "was" and this is only grammatically correct translation available to them.  At the end of the day, the translators actually agree with me and not with you.   You are trying skew the translation to favor your position.  I am working a knowledge ofthe language that you clearly don't have, as I have noticed how many times you have offered incorrect definitions of Hebrew words on various occasions.

I believe the same about you, Shiloh.  I believe you try to skew the translation to favor your position.

But I'm not.  I am not skewing anythng I can work through the grammar and show you why "became" is the wrong word and I have done so on many occasions.  I know the language and based on what I have seen in your posts, you clearly don't know the language.   I can back my position up with scholarly sources, all you can do is point to a margin note.

 

You are elevating yourself to a level and knowledge of Hebrew that not all scholars or Hebrew sages agree with.

Wrong.   I am standing in a position that all degreed scholars in Hebrew stand, which is why neither your or spock or anyone else have been able to provide ONE Hebrew scholar with an advanced degree that agrees with you.  The people who believe in the Gap Theory are not Hebrew scholars which is why those who write books favoring the Gap theory never consult Hebrew Scholars becuase they know they cannot get support from them.  So they resort to a lot of misinformation and even making things up to fill in the void of their lack of knowledge and they hope no one who has any skill in Hebrew takes the time to read their work.

 

When someone disagrees with you, you either elevate your self knowledge and study to absolute expertise, or, worst, you put down their knowledge, skills, study and input to strip them of their significance in the debate.

The facts are what the facts are. I can and have defended my position from knowing the language and working through the grammar with you.  

 

What I see is that for you and others, this is not about the truth.  It is about an agenda to support the Gap Theory.  You over sell what flimsy evidence you think supports your position and cannot answer me on the grounds of Hebrew grammar, which only solidfies why the Gap theory is a myth.

 

 

Just simply state your argument and go on.  Let others do the necessary study to intelligently come to their own conclusions.

I have produced the reference to many scholars, just on the NIV alone.  Anyone can Google it by asking "list of people who translated the NIV".  Look for the site under www.bible-researcher.com/niv-translators.html.  You will find the list of over 150 scholars and translators.  You will find the statement of creed which ascribe to the inerrant word of G-d too.  This and others sources have been referenced by me and others.  When you could not get around that, you proceeded to devalue the NIV and its accuracy by stating a homosexual was on the committee and therefore rendered it invaluable.  You had to Google that to find that unkind, prejudicial story.

I wouldnt be surprised to know it was a YEC proponent who posted some slanderous remark about one NIV translator being a homosexual just to discredit the entire work by the group of 150 language experts.

 

Especially, since the slanderous article is titled, "The NIV - A Translation Straight From the Pit of Hell".  Gee, think you might have some rational, reasonable, sane person writing this?  NOT!

 

 

Hey Shar,

 

It's not my intent to derail this topic, but I have seen alot of posts concerning the NIV and other translations.  I have personally researched this topic rather extensively...due to Genesis 3:1-4 and the Changing of the WORD.

 

I give you this and suggest you conduct your own Due Diligence.  It appears homosexuality is but the "TIP" of the Ice Berg......

 

 

*Codex Alexandrinus: found around 1630 brought to England.  A fifth Century Manuscript containing the Entire New Testament.

 

*Codex Siniaticus: found early 1800's by German Scholar Constantin von Tischendorf discovered it in a trash can in St Catherine's Monastery @ the Traditional Mt Sinai.  Dated around 350 AD, is one of the 2 Oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.

 

*Codex Vaticanus: in the Vatican Library since @ least 1481 but not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th Century.  Dated around 325 AD, complete Greek New Testament.

 

All three believed to originate in Alexandria Egypt. Home of the Gnostics.  See 1 John 1:1, 4:2,3: shows a Rebuttal of Gnosticism.

In 156 AD, Irenaeus (talking about the Gnostics): "Wherefore they and their followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened."

 

*** There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone!!!!

 

 

All modern translations have their Primary Source documents buried in those 3 codices including the NIV.

Two Names to keep in mind who are basically the Fathers of all New Translations...... Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort....(affectionately known as Westcott and Hort) I would suggest you do your own Due Diligence with these 2 gentleman and come to your own conclusion, it won't take long....

 

Start here:

 

Ghostly Guild

Hermes Club

The Eranus Club....with Arthur Balfour

F.J.A Hort, The First Epistle of Peter, p. 39

Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, vol 1

F.J.A. Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1 and 2

B.F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Wescott

B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John

B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews

 

Also, Helena Blavatsky continues to "Pop Up" in connection with these 2 Gentlemen.

 

If you are reading these Bibles, I would suggest to STOP what you are doing this second and conduct an IN-DEPTH study of Westcott and Hort......

(NIV, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation).

 

It's up to you.

 

Hope it helps

 

One of the essential to any document of antiquity is to compare it with other earlier manuscripts.  It does not mean that every aspect of an earlier manuscript is held out as completely viable, but only that which supports the inerrant word of G-d.  The NIV translators have sworn to the Word of G-d as truly being inerrant.

[Enoch2021]

 

Good admonition shar. We all have to watch we don't step over the line to do Gods business.

Shiloh, do you have any proof that anyone on NIV is a nonbeliever? You said nonbelievers should not translate, and I agree with that. Any proof someone is a nonbeliever?

The link you sent seemed to allege someone might be gay, but the link is not from an unbiased news source, so I measure what weight I would give that. Anything else?

 

 

Hey Spock,

 

See message 298....It will settle matters quite abruptly.

 

Hope it helps

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Well, my point exactly was we have no clue exactly what God has been doing during the eternity past.  He could've used and re-used the earth a billion different times for a billion different things.  It's not important either way.  You strike me as someone who has to be right about EVERY little dot and tittle and will write pages upon pages of information to disprove my theory over one single word.  It's not worth the debate, so I will back out of it. 

 

My final point here is that you cannot explain the last 6,000 years of earth's history from the bible.  Or even begin to understand God or what He has done for the eternity past.  You have no clue because you weren't there and it wasn't written about.  Just because the bible doesn't mention something doesn't mean it didn't happen.  All we can do is have theories and ideas and try to imagine what it was like. 

 

Whether or not a pile of rock sat motionless in space for billions of years has no baring on any important theological matter.  What does matter is the seven days of Creation week and how it ties in to man's sin, the curse and leading to Christ's sacrifice for our sins. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Well, my point exactly was we have no clue exactly what God has been doing during the eternity past.  He could've used and re-used the earth a billion different times for a billion different things.  It's not important either way.  You strike me as someone who has to be right about EVERY little dot and tittle and will write pages upon pages of information to disprove my theory over one single word.  It's not worth the debate, so I will back out of it. 

It's not a  dot or a tittle.  You are arguing from silence. You are saying that since we don't know what God was doing in eternity past that we can just fill in the gaps our selves with whatever and that is simply not true, particularly with something like the Gap Theory that contradicts God's revealed nature on very fundamental levels.

 

My final point here is that you cannot explain the last 6,000 years of earth's history from the bible.  Or even begin to understand God or what He has done for the eternity past.  You have no clue because you weren't there and it wasn't written about.  Just because the bible doesn't mention something doesn't mean it didn't happen.  All we can do is have theories and ideas and try to imagine what it was like. 

 

Or....   We can not run with whatever pops into our imagination and stop trying to develop theories that have no basis in Scripture, and simply believe and trust God's word that what is revealed is what we need to know with respect to God's activities in the dateless past.  God has not chosen to tell us what was going on in the dateles past.  It is preciesely because we dont' know what God was up to that we should not be imagining those things for ourselves and then passing them off as biblical theories.   We need to focus on truth and not meaningless, baseless fairytales like the Gap Theory.

 

Whether or not a pile of rock sat motionless in space for billions of years has no baring on any important theological matter.  What does matter is the seven days of Creation week and how it ties in to man's sin, the curse and leading to Christ's sacrifice for our sins. 

 

It speaks to the authority of the Bible and whether or not it is a trustworthy record of history.  All of biblical history is redemptive history. It is all connected to and leads up to Jesus.  All of the Bible beginning with Genesis is about Jesus.  If you build a faulty foundation, everything built on it will be faulty.   If the Bible can't be trusted at the beginning of redemptive history, why trust it in anything else?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The NIV and other translations do translate it as "possibly became".  Definitely room for argument.

No, they don't translate it that way.   In the margins of some NIV Bibles they claim that "was" can mean "became," and they are right.  In certain contexts it can mean, "became."  But when given a choice, they translated the actual text correctly as "was."   They knew that "became" simply didn't work in Gen. 1:2.

A footnote is to give the reader additional information specifically about the given word and how it is used in the given sentence.  By simple definition, in all cases, a footnote cites a reference for a designated part of the text.  It is not used to simply give possible meanings of the word, if used in some other context.  Other translations, including their footnotes, want the reader to be fully aware that the word "was" can mean "became" in Ge. 1:2.  "the earth became formless and void..".

 

Wow, Shiloh, now I know you will go to no end to fit in your YEC model.  The translators are letting the reader know that the use of "was" cannot be simply translated to mean the current or present state of condition.  Instead, they are saying that it could have become in that condition after Ge.1:1

You need to understand what translators mean when they say a word "CAN" be translated a certain way.   In Hebrew, a word can have several usages, but only ONE of them applies to a given context.   In other words the word ha-ya in Gen. 1:2 can only have ONE usage. It cannot mean both "was" and "became" simultaneously.  

 

When they translators of the NIV had to make a choice, they didn't choose "became."   Ha-ya was tranlsated "was" and this is only grammatically correct translation available to them.  At the end of the day, the translators actually agree with me and not with you.   You are trying skew the translation to favor your position.  I am working a knowledge ofthe language that you clearly don't have, as I have noticed how many times you have offered incorrect definitions of Hebrew words on various occasions.

I believe the same about you, Shiloh.  I believe you try to skew the translation to favor your position.

But I'm not.  I am not skewing anythng I can work through the grammar and show you why "became" is the wrong word and I have done so on many occasions.  I know the language and based on what I have seen in your posts, you clearly don't know the language.   I can back my position up with scholarly sources, all you can do is point to a margin note.

 

You are elevating yourself to a level and knowledge of Hebrew that not all scholars or Hebrew sages agree with.

Wrong.   I am standing in a position that all degreed scholars in Hebrew stand, which is why neither your or spock or anyone else have been able to provide ONE Hebrew scholar with an advanced degree that agrees with you.  The people who believe in the Gap Theory are not Hebrew scholars which is why those who write books favoring the Gap theory never consult Hebrew Scholars becuase they know they cannot get support from them.  So they resort to a lot of misinformation and even making things up to fill in the void of their lack of knowledge and they hope no one who has any skill in Hebrew takes the time to read their work.

 

When someone disagrees with you, you either elevate your self knowledge and study to absolute expertise, or, worst, you put down their knowledge, skills, study and input to strip them of their significance in the debate.

The facts are what the facts are. I can and have defended my position from knowing the language and working through the grammar with you.  

 

What I see is that for you and others, this is not about the truth.  It is about an agenda to support the Gap Theory.  You over sell what flimsy evidence you think supports your position and cannot answer me on the grounds of Hebrew grammar, which only solidfies why the Gap theory is a myth.

 

 

Just simply state your argument and go on.  Let others do the necessary study to intelligently come to their own conclusions.

I have produced the reference to many scholars, just on the NIV alone.  Anyone can Google it by asking "list of people who translated the NIV".  Look for the site under www.bible-researcher.com/niv-translators.html.  You will find the list of over 150 scholars and translators.  You will find the statement of creed which ascribe to the inerrant word of G-d too.  This and others sources have been referenced by me and others.  When you could not get around that, you proceeded to devalue the NIV and its accuracy by stating a homosexual was on the committee and therefore rendered it invaluable.  You had to Google that to find that unkind, prejudicial story.

I wouldnt be surprised to know it was a YEC proponent who posted some slanderous remark about one NIV translator being a homosexual just to discredit the entire work by the group of 150 language experts.

 

Especially, since the slanderous article is titled, "The NIV - A Translation Straight From the Pit of Hell".  Gee, think you might have some rational, reasonable, sane person writing this?  NOT!

 

 

Hey Shar,

 

It's not my intent to derail this topic, but I have seen alot of posts concerning the NIV and other translations.  I have personally researched this topic rather extensively...due to Genesis 3:1-4 and the Changing of the WORD.

 

I give you this and suggest you conduct your own Due Diligence.  It appears homosexuality is but the "TIP" of the Ice Berg......

 

 

*Codex Alexandrinus: found around 1630 brought to England.  A fifth Century Manuscript containing the Entire New Testament.

 

*Codex Siniaticus: found early 1800's by German Scholar Constantin von Tischendorf discovered it in a trash can in St Catherine's Monastery @ the Traditional Mt Sinai.  Dated around 350 AD, is one of the 2 Oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.

 

*Codex Vaticanus: in the Vatican Library since @ least 1481 but not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th Century.  Dated around 325 AD, complete Greek New Testament.

 

All three believed to originate in Alexandria Egypt. Home of the Gnostics.  See 1 John 1:1, 4:2,3: shows a Rebuttal of Gnosticism.

In 156 AD, Irenaeus (talking about the Gnostics): "Wherefore they and their followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened."

 

*** There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone!!!!

 

 

All modern translations have their Primary Source documents buried in those 3 codices including the NIV.

Two Names to keep in mind who are basically the Fathers of all New Translations...... Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort....(affectionately known as Westcott and Hort) I would suggest you do your own Due Diligence with these 2 gentleman and come to your own conclusion, it won't take long....

 

Start here:

 

Ghostly Guild

Hermes Club

The Eranus Club....with Arthur Balfour

F.J.A Hort, The First Epistle of Peter, p. 39

Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, vol 1

F.J.A. Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1 and 2

B.F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Wescott

B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John

B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews

 

Also, Helena Blavatsky continues to "Pop Up" in connection with these 2 Gentlemen.

 

If you are reading these Bibles, I would suggest to STOP what you are doing this second and conduct an IN-DEPTH study of Westcott and Hort......

(NIV, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation).

 

It's up to you.

 

Hope it helps

 

One of the essential to any document of antiquity is to compare it with other earlier manuscripts.  It does not mean that every aspect of an earlier manuscript is held out as completely viable, but only that which supports the inerrant word of G-d.  The NIV translators have sworn to the Word of G-d as truly being inerrant.

 

 

I have given you what you need Shar...and it's Air Tight.  And 90% of the "evidence" are THEIR OWN WORDS! 

 

You either conduct Due Diligence or not.   Keep this in mind....

 

(Proverbs 18:13) "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

A couple of additions to provide some motivation....

 

Last 12 Verses of Mark (16:9-20) Most Modern Translations there will be a marginal notation that these verses were added later and question the authenticity. They are not found in the 3 codices.

In 150 AD, several Centuries before these codices,  Irenaeus quotes these verses in his commentary!  ahhh, Houston we have a problem!!

 

2nd Century AD, Hypolatus also comments on these verses.

 

 

I "HIGHLY" suggest a review of the source information.

 

 

Last comment from me to you on the issue.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone that I know exactly. I was just giving my theory. I believe the correct terminology is "became" and there are other verses that speak to Satan falling and being admonished in many stones and jewels. That was before he tempted Eve. That was before the fall. Adam and Eve's creation was not on the same day. Adam was at the task of naming all the animals and plants and over time realized he was lonely. How much time had passed? We do not know. You can assume your thoughts and I can assume mine. When did time exactly begin? The bible starts out, "In the beginning..." When was this beginning? Again, I am NOT NOT NOT NOT a supporter of gap theory. You keep saying I am because I am suggesting the earth had a purpose before creation week. I am only going by what I see in the bible. Would it be so bad if the earth existed in the past before God decided to use it? Really, please tell me the harm such an idea would do to Christians? I just don't think (my opinion) that God sat by for an eternity past and did nothing. It is possible He created other earths in this vast universe. You just seem very closed minded to any thoughts outside of the text in Genesis. I am not saying anything that is contrary to the text...I believe the text wholeheartedly. I am imaginative by nature. Do you not sit and wonder what Heaven must be like and how life would be like without the concept of time?

[Spock]

I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone that I know exactly. I was just giving my theory. I believe the correct terminology is "became" and there are other verses that speak to Satan falling and being admonished in many stones and jewels. That was before he tempted Eve. That was before the fall. Adam and Eve's creation was not on the same day. Adam was at the task of naming all the animals and plants and over time realized he was lonely. How much time had passed? We do not know. You can assume your thoughts and I can assume mine. When did time exactly begin? The bible starts out, "In the beginning..." When was this beginning? Again, I am NOT NOT NOT NOT a supporter of gap theory. You keep saying I am because I am suggesting the earth had a purpose before creation week. I am only going by what I see in the bible. Would it be so bad if the earth existed in the past before God decided to use it? Really, please tell me the harm such an idea would do to Christians? I just don't think (my opinion) that God sat by for an eternity past and did nothing. It is possible He created other earths in this vast universe. You just seem very closed minded to any thoughts outside of the text in Genesis. I am not saying anything that is contrary to the text...I believe the text wholeheartedly. I am imaginative by nature. Do you not sit and wonder what Heaven must be like and how life would be like without the concept of time?

Anthony, good words and you are right to back out of this discussion. Why bang your head and walk away frustrated? You stated your perspective well and you should take comfort in knowing that many of us here see what you see -dateless past-and feel God is much bigger than a mere 6000 years. Cheers.

[Enoch2021]

 

I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone that I know exactly. I was just giving my theory. I believe the correct terminology is "became" and there are other verses that speak to Satan falling and being admonished in many stones and jewels. That was before he tempted Eve. That was before the fall. Adam and Eve's creation was not on the same day. Adam was at the task of naming all the animals and plants and over time realized he was lonely. How much time had passed? We do not know. You can assume your thoughts and I can assume mine. When did time exactly begin? The bible starts out, "In the beginning..." When was this beginning? Again, I am NOT NOT NOT NOT a supporter of gap theory. You keep saying I am because I am suggesting the earth had a purpose before creation week. I am only going by what I see in the bible. Would it be so bad if the earth existed in the past before God decided to use it? Really, please tell me the harm such an idea would do to Christians? I just don't think (my opinion) that God sat by for an eternity past and did nothing. It is possible He created other earths in this vast universe. You just seem very closed minded to any thoughts outside of the text in Genesis. I am not saying anything that is contrary to the text...I believe the text wholeheartedly. I am imaginative by nature. Do you not sit and wonder what Heaven must be like and how life would be like without the concept of time?

Anthony, good words and you are right to back out of this discussion. Why bang your head and walk away frustrated? You stated your perspective well and you should take comfort in knowing that many of us here see what you see -dateless past-and feel God is much bigger than a mere 6000 years. Cheers.

 

 

Hey Spock,

 

Did you check those sources I provided for the NIV et al issue?

 

 

"Anthony, good words and you are right to back out of this discussion."

 

Anthony said he was going to "Back Out" in the message previous to this one.  He hasn't backed out yet 

 

 

"-dateless past-and feel God is much bigger than a mere 6000 years."

 

Now Spock....are you trying to portray the YEC position as us "Limiting" GOD in some way?  What does HIS "Almighty-Ness" have to do with time?  If it was 80,000 years instead of 6,000 years, would that make GOD MIGHTIER or "Bigger"?

[Spock]

I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone that I know exactly. I was just giving my theory. I believe the correct terminology is "became" and there are other verses that speak to Satan falling and being admonished in many stones and jewels. That was before he tempted Eve. That was before the fall. Adam and Eve's creation was not on the same day. Adam was at the task of naming all the animals and plants and over time realized he was lonely. How much time had passed? We do not know. You can assume your thoughts and I can assume mine. When did time exactly begin? The bible starts out, "In the beginning..." When was this beginning? Again, I am NOT NOT NOT NOT a supporter of gap theory. You keep saying I am because I am suggesting the earth had a purpose before creation week. I am only going by what I see in the bible. Would it be so bad if the earth existed in the past before God decided to use it? Really, please tell me the harm such an idea would do to Christians? I just don't think (my opinion) that God sat by for an eternity past and did nothing. It is possible He created other earths in this vast universe. You just seem very closed minded to any thoughts outside of the text in Genesis. I am not saying anything that is contrary to the text...I believe the text wholeheartedly. I am imaginative by nature. Do you not sit and wonder what Heaven must be like and how life would be like without the concept of time?

Anthony, good words and you are right to back out of this discussion. Why bang your head and walk away frustrated? You stated your perspective well and you should take comfort in knowing that many of us here see what you see -dateless past-and feel God is much bigger than a mere 6000 years. Cheers.

 

Hey Spock,

 

Did you check those sources I provided for the NIV et al issue?

 

 

"Anthony, good words and you are right to back out of this discussion."

 

Anthony said he was going to "Back Out" in the message previous to this one.  He hasn't backed out yet 

 

 

"-dateless past-and feel God is much bigger than a mere 6000 years."

 

Now Spock....are you trying to portray the YEC position as us "Limiting" GOD in some way?  What does HIS "Almighty-Ness" have to do with time?  If it was 80,000 years instead of 6,000 years, would that make GOD MIGHTIER or "Bigger"?

Busier at least!