The Distant Starlight Problem

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"What I tried to do was to get you to TRY to put yourself in someone's else's shoes-people who are equally convinced"

 

The TRUTH isn't reached by how many people or WHO is convinced.... it's what the WORD says.  Spock, you know this.

 

And...

 

(Matthew 7:13-14) " Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  {14}  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

 

If it were me....I'd be UBER careful in my walk with many people around me coming up to a Wide Gate!!  Just sayin

 

 

"the bible does NOT say God created the universe 6000 years ago, but rather a dateless past, based on their interpretation of Genesis 1:1"

 

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

Can you please show me where you see a dateless past??    And what or how you can interpret anything but.... "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"  ??

 

 

"many were disagreeing with Shiloh BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE AS HE DOES."

 

I believed what I do LONG BEFORE SHILOH.  And those people aren't disagreeing with Shiloh IMHO, they're disagreeing with the PLAIN and Clear WORD.  Shiloh is a blessing in that he is IMMOVABLE when it comes to the WORD and HE SUPPORTS his position with THE WORD.

 

I'm relatively new here and IMHO.....there is something personal with many board members and Shiloh that has nothing to do with the WORD.  They take his Poignant and Brutally Honest approach and Conjure and Twist it into a Personal Insult or a Condescending Arrogant Attitude.  That's how I see it.

 

I don't agree with Shiloh on everything but I must say, he is refreshing in this approach to the Authority of the WORD.  There is much to learn from him.  He is the exception rather that the rule!  Be a Berean....take every word with a grain of salt then GO SEARCH THESE MATTERS DAILY TO SEE IF IT IS SO!!

 

I have been gone a while but thought I would chime back in; forgive me if I am intruding.

 

Shiloh’s “brutally honest”….

 

is there a way to just be honest without brutality?

 

What I resent most with Shiloh is not the brutality behind his honesty, but his rhetorical approach to argumentation.  He is dogmatic.  He will say something like, “nope, you’re wrong” and then give a quick one sentence explanation as if it explained it all and settled the case.  I value clarity above all things; he is obviously very clear about his opinions; he lacks clarity with his argumentation.  He speaks as though he were a prophet; but he is a mere man and therefore I require more from him than "thus sayeth the Lord".

 

I also tire of his (and other's sarcasm).  When he (and others) say something like, "try and find one claim made by scientists that can fit into the scientific method....good luck"  he is clearly not wishing me "good luck".  He is being flippant.  So why say it? Well, to be flippant.

 

Shiloh may or may not be exceptional at Hebrew; most of his arguments could be found by a quick google search.  My complaint is that he only employs one aspect of exegesis: language.  I employ language and culture: in doing so I believe (or as Shiloh might say, I now KNOW) that the author/AUTHOR did not care a wit about the age of the earth and would not care a wit today when that question is placed along the theological message of Genesis.

 

"The truth is not reached by how many or who"

 

OF course.  But if 10,000 people thought one thing and I another, I had better be UBER careful about assuming they are all mistaken and I am a genius.  Perhaps I am.  But I had better be UBER careful.  The probability that I am a Galileo is very slim.

 

 

clb

 

But all of this is tiresome........what happened to the actual debate?

 

 

"I have been gone a while but thought I would chime back in; forgive me if I am intruding."

 

Not intruding @ all.

 

"is there a way to just be honest without brutality?"

 

You're convoluting Brutality and Brutally...as in honest.  Brutally Honest, in the parlance of our time, simply means the TRUTH with no adorning Flowers or Perfume statements.  The connotation with violence is stretching the meaning and context well beyond reason.

 

"He is dogmatic."

 

Is the WORD Dogmatic?

 

"He will say something like, “nope, you’re wrong” and then give a quick one sentence explanation as if it explained it all and settled the case."

 

For instance...?  And sometimes depending on depth of subject and/or familiarity with a responder a "One Sentence" response is all that is needed.  You most likely need to evaluate each "infraction" individually, on it's own merit.

 

"he lacks clarity with his argumentation.  He speaks as though he were a prophet; but he is a mere man and therefore I require more from him than "thus sayeth the Lord"."

 

I summarily an unequivocally disagree.

 

"try and find one claim made by scientists that can fit into the scientific method....good luck".....He is being flippant."

 

That sounds like something I would say   Flippant? .....frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flippant

I don't see Flippant in that statement Sir.

 

 

"I employ language and culture:"

 

Yes, I hear this alot on these boards.  Well, GOD wrote HIS Love Letter not only to the Hebrews but TO ME.  What does the "Culture" have anything to do with it when it was GOD HIMSELF driving said "CULTURE"??

 

 

"the author/AUTHOR did not care a wit about the age of the earth and would not care a wit today when that question is placed along the theological message of Genesis."

 

The AUTHOR is GOD....You know the MIND OF GOD??  Do you think HE would care if the "Age Thingy" was being used to undermine the very FOUNDATION of HIS WORD? 

 

"The truth is not reached by how many or who"

 

Then you said....

 

OF course.  But if 10,000 people thought one thing and I another, I had better be UBER careful about assuming they are all mistaken and I am a genius.  Perhaps I am.  But I had better be UBER careful.  The probability that I am a Galileo is very slim.

 

You are contradicting yourself with everything after "OF course."  You are plenty wise enough to follow the TRUE PATH...if you doubt, then ASK HIM: HE will surely give you that wisdom.

 

And this is quite clear....

 

(Matthew 7:13-14) " Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

"What I tried to do was to get you to TRY to put yourself in someone's else's shoes-people who are equally convinced"

 

The TRUTH isn't reached by how many people or WHO is convinced.... it's what the WORD says.  Spock, you know this.

 

And...

 

(Matthew 7:13-14) " Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  {14}  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

 

If it were me....I'd be UBER careful in my walk with many people around me coming up to a Wide Gate!!  Just sayin

 

 

"the bible does NOT say God created the universe 6000 years ago, but rather a dateless past, based on their interpretation of Genesis 1:1"

 

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

Can you please show me where you see a dateless past??    And what or how you can interpret anything but.... "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"  ??

 

 

"many were disagreeing with Shiloh BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE AS HE DOES."

 

I believed what I do LONG BEFORE SHILOH.  And those people aren't disagreeing with Shiloh IMHO, they're disagreeing with the PLAIN and Clear WORD.  Shiloh is a blessing in that he is IMMOVABLE when it comes to the WORD and HE SUPPORTS his position with THE WORD.

 

I'm relatively new here and IMHO.....there is something personal with many board members and Shiloh that has nothing to do with the WORD.  They take his Poignant and Brutally Honest approach and Conjure and Twist it into a Personal Insult or a Condescending Arrogant Attitude.  That's how I see it.

 

I don't agree with Shiloh on everything but I must say, he is refreshing in this approach to the Authority of the WORD.  There is much to learn from him.  He is the exception rather that the rule!  Be a Berean....take every word with a grain of salt then GO SEARCH THESE MATTERS DAILY TO SEE IF IT IS SO!!

 

I have been gone a while but thought I would chime back in; forgive me if I am intruding.

 

Shiloh’s “brutally honest”….

 

is there a way to just be honest without brutality?

 

What I resent most with Shiloh is not the brutality behind his honesty, but his rhetorical approach to argumentation.  He is dogmatic.  He will say something like, “nope, you’re wrong” and then give a quick one sentence explanation as if it explained it all and settled the case.  I value clarity above all things; he is obviously very clear about his opinions; he lacks clarity with his argumentation.  He speaks as though he were a prophet; but he is a mere man and therefore I require more from him than "thus sayeth the Lord".

 

I also tire of his (and other's sarcasm).  When he (and others) say something like, "try and find one claim made by scientists that can fit into the scientific method....good luck"  he is clearly not wishing me "good luck".  He is being flippant.  So why say it? Well, to be flippant.

 

Shiloh may or may not be exceptional at Hebrew; most of his arguments could be found by a quick google search.  My complaint is that he only employs one aspect of exegesis: language.  I employ language and culture: in doing so I believe (or as Shiloh might say, I now KNOW) that the author/AUTHOR did not care a wit about the age of the earth and would not care a wit today when that question is placed along the theological message of Genesis.

 

"The truth is not reached by how many or who"

 

OF course.  But if 10,000 people thought one thing and I another, I had better be UBER careful about assuming they are all mistaken and I am a genius.  Perhaps I am.  But I had better be UBER careful.  The probability that I am a Galileo is very slim.

 

 

clb

 

But all of this is tiresome........what happened to the actual debate?

 

 

"I have been gone a while but thought I would chime back in; forgive me if I am intruding."

 

Not intruding @ all.

 

"is there a way to just be honest without brutality?"

 

You're convoluting Brutality and Brutally...as in honest.  Brutally Honest, in the parlance of our time, simply means the TRUTH with no adorning Flowers or Perfume statements.  The connotation with violence is stretching the meaning and context well beyond reason.

 

"He is dogmatic."

 

Is the WORD Dogmatic?

 

"He will say something like, “nope, you’re wrong” and then give a quick one sentence explanation as if it explained it all and settled the case."

 

For instance...?  And sometimes depending on depth of subject and/or familiarity with a responder a "One Sentence" response is all that is needed.  You most likely need to evaluate each "infraction" individually, on it's own merit.

 

"he lacks clarity with his argumentation.  He speaks as though he were a prophet; but he is a mere man and therefore I require more from him than "thus sayeth the Lord"."

 

I summarily an unequivocally disagree.

 

"try and find one claim made by scientists that can fit into the scientific method....good luck".....He is being flippant."

 

That sounds like something I would say   Flippant? .....frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flippant

I don't see Flippant in that statement Sir.

 

 

"I employ language and culture:"

 

Yes, I hear this alot on these boards.  Well, GOD wrote HIS Love Letter not only to the Hebrews but TO ME.  What does the "Culture" have anything to do with it when it was GOD HIMSELF driving said "CULTURE"??

 

 

"the author/AUTHOR did not care a wit about the age of the earth and would not care a wit today when that question is placed along the theological message of Genesis."

 

The AUTHOR is GOD....You know the MIND OF GOD??  Do you think HE would care if the "Age Thingy" was being used to undermine the very FOUNDATION of HIS WORD? 

 

"The truth is not reached by how many or who"

 

Then you said....

 

OF course.  But if 10,000 people thought one thing and I another, I had better be UBER careful about assuming they are all mistaken and I am a genius.  Perhaps I am.  But I had better be UBER careful.  The probability that I am a Galileo is very slim.

 

You are contradicting yourself with everything after "OF course."  You are plenty wise enough to follow the TRUE PATH...if you doubt, then ASK HIM: HE will surely give you that wisdom.

 

And this is quite clear....

 

(Matthew 7:13-14) " Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

 

 

Addendum:

 

My exact statement that you quoted in the above message was mis-charachterized, I said this....

 

 

"Please place your "scientific dating technique" in each step please, and Good Luck:"

 

 

That is not a Flippant statement...it was made to make a point.  A very good point @ that, IMHO.

[other one]

can someone tell me how they know if a star is 9 million light years away, or 5,000?

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

 

"What I tried to do was to get you to TRY to put yourself in someone's else's shoes-people who are equally convinced"

 

The TRUTH isn't reached by how many people or WHO is convinced.... it's what the WORD says.  Spock, you know this.

 

And...

 

(Matthew 7:13-14) " Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  {14}  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

 

If it were me....I'd be UBER careful in my walk with many people around me coming up to a Wide Gate!!  Just sayin

 

 

"the bible does NOT say God created the universe 6000 years ago, but rather a dateless past, based on their interpretation of Genesis 1:1"

 

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

Can you please show me where you see a dateless past??    And what or how you can interpret anything but.... "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"  ??

 

 

"many were disagreeing with Shiloh BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE AS HE DOES."

 

I believed what I do LONG BEFORE SHILOH.  And those people aren't disagreeing with Shiloh IMHO, they're disagreeing with the PLAIN and Clear WORD.  Shiloh is a blessing in that he is IMMOVABLE when it comes to the WORD and HE SUPPORTS his position with THE WORD.

 

I'm relatively new here and IMHO.....there is something personal with many board members and Shiloh that has nothing to do with the WORD.  They take his Poignant and Brutally Honest approach and Conjure and Twist it into a Personal Insult or a Condescending Arrogant Attitude.  That's how I see it.

 

I don't agree with Shiloh on everything but I must say, he is refreshing in this approach to the Authority of the WORD.  There is much to learn from him.  He is the exception rather that the rule!  Be a Berean....take every word with a grain of salt then GO SEARCH THESE MATTERS DAILY TO SEE IF IT IS SO!!

 

I have been gone a while but thought I would chime back in; forgive me if I am intruding.

 

Shiloh’s “brutally honest”….

 

is there a way to just be honest without brutality?

 

What I resent most with Shiloh is not the brutality behind his honesty, but his rhetorical approach to argumentation.  He is dogmatic.  He will say something like, “nope, you’re wrong” and then give a quick one sentence explanation as if it explained it all and settled the case.  I value clarity above all things; he is obviously very clear about his opinions; he lacks clarity with his argumentation.  He speaks as though he were a prophet; but he is a mere man and therefore I require more from him than "thus sayeth the Lord".

 

I also tire of his (and other's sarcasm).  When he (and others) say something like, "try and find one claim made by scientists that can fit into the scientific method....good luck"  he is clearly not wishing me "good luck".  He is being flippant.  So why say it? Well, to be flippant.

 

Shiloh may or may not be exceptional at Hebrew; most of his arguments could be found by a quick google search.  My complaint is that he only employs one aspect of exegesis: language.  I employ language and culture: in doing so I believe (or as Shiloh might say, I now KNOW) that the author/AUTHOR did not care a wit about the age of the earth and would not care a wit today when that question is placed along the theological message of Genesis.

 

"The truth is not reached by how many or who"

 

OF course.  But if 10,000 people thought one thing and I another, I had better be UBER careful about assuming they are all mistaken and I am a genius.  Perhaps I am.  But I had better be UBER careful.  The probability that I am a Galileo is very slim.

 

 

clb

 

But all of this is tiresome........what happened to the actual debate?

 

 

"I have been gone a while but thought I would chime back in; forgive me if I am intruding."

 

Not intruding @ all.

 

"is there a way to just be honest without brutality?"

 

You're convoluting Brutality and Brutally...as in honest.  Brutally Honest, in the parlance of our time, simply means the TRUTH with no adorning Flowers or Perfume statements.  The connotation with violence is stretching the meaning and context well beyond reason.

 

"He is dogmatic."

 

Is the WORD Dogmatic?

 

"He will say something like, “nope, you’re wrong” and then give a quick one sentence explanation as if it explained it all and settled the case."

 

For instance...?  And sometimes depending on depth of subject and/or familiarity with a responder a "One Sentence" response is all that is needed.  You most likely need to evaluate each "infraction" individually, on it's own merit.

 

"he lacks clarity with his argumentation.  He speaks as though he were a prophet; but he is a mere man and therefore I require more from him than "thus sayeth the Lord"."

 

I summarily an unequivocally disagree.

 

"try and find one claim made by scientists that can fit into the scientific method....good luck".....He is being flippant."

 

That sounds like something I would say   Flippant? .....frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flippant

I don't see Flippant in that statement Sir.

 

 

"I employ language and culture:"

 

Yes, I hear this alot on these boards.  Well, GOD wrote HIS Love Letter not only to the Hebrews but TO ME.  What does the "Culture" have anything to do with it when it was GOD HIMSELF driving said "CULTURE"??

 

 

"the author/AUTHOR did not care a wit about the age of the earth and would not care a wit today when that question is placed along the theological message of Genesis."

 

The AUTHOR is GOD....You know the MIND OF GOD??  Do you think HE would care if the "Age Thingy" was being used to undermine the very FOUNDATION of HIS WORD? 

 

"The truth is not reached by how many or who"

 

Then you said....

 

OF course.  But if 10,000 people thought one thing and I another, I had better be UBER careful about assuming they are all mistaken and I am a genius.  Perhaps I am.  But I had better be UBER careful.  The probability that I am a Galileo is very slim.

 

You are contradicting yourself with everything after "OF course."  You are plenty wise enough to follow the TRUE PATH...if you doubt, then ASK HIM: HE will surely give you that wisdom.

 

And this is quite clear....

 

(Matthew 7:13-14) " Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

 

 

Addendum:

 

My exact statement that you quoted in the above message was mis-charachterized, I said this....

 

 

"Please place your "scientific dating technique" in each step please, and Good Luck:"

 

 

That is not a Flippant statement...it was made to make a point.  A very good point @ that, IMHO.

 

so you really wished me "good luck"?  That was an honest "send off"?  Or was really "Good luck" = you'll never find it= sarcasm

 

Nah.  it was flippant.  You didn't wish me good luck.

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh’s “brutally honest”….

 

is there a way to just be honest without brutality?

 

What I resent most with Shiloh is not the brutality behind his honesty, but his rhetorical approach to argumentation.  He is dogmatic.  He will say something like, “nope, you’re wrong” and then give a quick one sentence explanation as if it explained it all and settled the case.  I value clarity above all things; he is obviously very clear about his opinions; he lacks clarity with his argumentation.  He speaks as though he were a prophet; but he is a mere man and therefore I require more from him than "thus sayeth the Lord".

 

I have provided far more than one sentence responses.  In fact some of my responses get a little tool long depending on what I am responding to.   But nice attempt at oversimplifying my responses just so you can have something to criticize. 

 

 

I also tire of his (and other's sarcasm).  When he (and others) say something like, "try and find one claim made by scientists that can fit into the scientific method....good luck"  he is clearly not wishing me "good luck".  He is being flippant.  So why say it? Well, to be flippant.

 

Not sure where I have said anything to that effect.

 

Shiloh may or may not be exceptional at Hebrew; most of his arguments could be found by a quick google search.

 

  I don't claim to be exceptional at Hebrew.   I speak the language and I read it as well.   I am not an expert.  I rely on scholars more learned than I am.  I have 4 hours of university level Hebrew, far from being an expert.  There are men and women with over 18 hours of graduate level Hebrew who don't consider themselves exceptional or expert in the language either.   And yes, you are correct, there are Hebrew learning sites on the Internet.  Yet, no one here will avail themselves of those resources.    I have notebooks full of my class notes and scholarly books written by men who are true scholars of the language, so my claims about the Hebrew language come from a reserve of competent scholarship. I know what I know because I rely on men who are greater and more learned than me when it comes to Hebrew.

 

My complaint is that he only employs one aspect of exegesis: language.

 

Well, your complaint isn't based on reality.  Those who have been here for a while know that I employ far more than simply language.  I employ the full gamut of hermeneutic principles while exegeting Scripture.   You dont' really know me all that well and are not competent to render an accurate assessement of my exegetical capabilities. 

 

I employ language and culture: in doing so I believe (or as Shiloh might say, I now KNOW) that the author/AUTHOR did not care a wit about the age of the earth and would not care a wit today when that question is placed along the theological message of Genesis

 

I find that people like you are burning the candle at both ends.   As a refutation of the YEC model we are told that God doesn't care about the age of the earth, that the Bible makes no issue of it at all. Yet, on the other hand, I have been told repeatedly that the Bible DOES support and give evidence for an old earth.   It can't be both.   If God doesn't concern Himself with the age of the earth, then why does He provide evidence for an old earth?   Why is supporting the YEC with the Bible invalid based on the notion that God doesn't care about telling us anything about the age of the earth, but then turn around and attempt to make a biblical argument for OEC.   They can't have it both ways.

 

 

"The truth is not reached by how many or who"

 

OF course.  But if 10,000 people thought one thing and I another, I had better be UBER careful about assuming they are all mistaken and I am a genius.  Perhaps I am.  But I had better be UBER careful.  The probability that I am a Galileo is very slim.

 

Knowing and advancing the truth is not about being a genius.  It is about trusting the Bible to be what it purports to be:  The wholly inspired, inerrant, immutable, Word of God. When I have the word of an all-knowing God who doesn't lie or make mistakes, I am on sure footing; moreso than those who are relying on the theories of fallible men. I rely on a God who doesn't change, who is just as true and faithful today as He was thousands of years ago.  I don't have to be a genius.  I have the ultimate "genius" living in my heart and I can simply trust in Him.

[Shar]

 

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". 

 

Yes, and a male prostitute IS a homosexual.

 

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. 

 

It is a word that is used generally as a term for any kind of sexual impurity and biblically speaking that would include homosexuality.

 

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.

 

Overuse???  The KJV uses "sodomite" ONCE.   It uses "effeminate" once.  The KIng James English didn't have the word "homosexual."  That is how they referred to gay men, back then.  The word they used in English was the best word to translate malakos.   The word, "fornicator" is used twice.   That doesn't count as "overuse." 

 

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

 

Before you go criticizing him, you need to read your Bible a little better.  You are way off.

 

 

Let's get around your continuing INSULTS.  I not only read my Bible, I thoroughly read the article.  And, you are actually making my point.  His objective is to totally discredit the NIV because he says two homosexuals were of the 150 translators.  He then infers because they did not particularly use the word "Fornicator" and then "effeminate" or "sodomite", they are trying to lessen the severity of the offense and compromise the Scriptures.  The NIV used the appropriate terms.  YOU even agreed, made my point..  My point, "a shrine prostitute" is a homosexual.  The NIV better used that term because of the context within the verse.  As far as KJV, there have been many updates to the translation and they still use these words instead of choosing more appropriate, defining terms.  Point is, the author was riddled with hate, bias and horrible inference.

[Spock]

Shiloh’s “brutally honest”….

 

is there a way to just be honest without brutality?

 

What I resent most with Shiloh is not the brutality behind his honesty, but his rhetorical approach to argumentation.  He is dogmatic.  He will say something like, “nope, you’re wrong” and then give a quick one sentence explanation as if it explained it all and settled the case.  I value clarity above all things; he is obviously very clear about his opinions; he lacks clarity with his argumentation.  He speaks as though he were a prophet; but he is a mere man and therefore I require more from him than "thus sayeth the Lord".

I have provided far more than one sentence responses.  In fact some of my responses get a little tool long depending on what I am responding to.   But nice attempt at oversimplifying my responses just so you can have something to criticize. 

 

 

I also tire of his (and other's sarcasm).  When he (and others) say something like, "try and find one claim made by scientists that can fit into the scientific method....good luck"  he is clearly not wishing me "good luck".  He is being flippant.  So why say it? Well, to be flippant.

Not sure where I have said anything to that effect.

 

Shiloh may or may not be exceptional at Hebrew; most of his arguments could be found by a quick google search.

  I don't claim to be exceptional at Hebrew.   I speak the language and I read it as well.   I am not an expert.  I rely on scholars more learned than I am.  I have 4 hours of university level Hebrew, far from being an expert.  There are men and women with over 18 hours of graduate level Hebrew who don't consider themselves exceptional or expert in the language either.   And yes, you are correct, there are Hebrew learning sites on the Internet.  Yet, no one here will avail themselves of those resources.    I have notebooks full of my class notes and scholarly books written by men who are true scholars of the language, so my claims about the Hebrew language come from a reserve of competent scholarship. I know what I know because I rely on men who are greater and more learned than me when it comes to Hebrew.

 

My complaint is that he only employs one aspect of exegesis: language.

Well, your complaint isn't based on reality.  Those who have been here for a while know that I employ far more than simply language.  I employ the full gamut of hermeneutic principles while exegeting Scripture.   You dont' really know me all that well and are not competent to render an accurate assessement of my exegetical capabilities. 

 

I employ language and culture: in doing so I believe (or as Shiloh might say, I now KNOW) that the author/AUTHOR did not care a wit about the age of the earth and would not care a wit today when that question is placed along the theological message of Genesis

I find that people like you are burning the candle at both ends.   As a refutation of the YEC model we are told that God doesn't care about the age of the earth, that the Bible makes no issue of it at all. Yet, on the other hand, I have been told repeatedly that the Bible DOES support and give evidence for an old earth.   It can't be both.   If God doesn't concern Himself with the age of the earth, then why does He provide evidence for an old earth?   Why is supporting the YEC with the Bible invalid based on the notion that God doesn't care about telling us anything about the age of the earth, but then turn around and attempt to make a biblical argument for OEC.   They can't have it both ways.

 

 

"The truth is not reached by how many or who"

 

OF course.  But if 10,000 people thought one thing and I another, I had better be UBER careful about assuming they are all mistaken and I am a genius.  Perhaps I am.  But I had better be UBER careful.  The probability that I am a Galileo is very slim.

Knowing and advancing the truth is not about being a genius.  It is about trusting the Bible to be what it purports to be:  The wholly inspired, inerrant, immutable, Word of God. When I have the word of an all-knowing God who doesn't lie or make mistakes, I am on sure footing; moreso than those who are relying on the theories of fallible men. I rely on a God who doesn't change, who is just as true and faithful today as He was thousands of years ago.  I don't have to be a genius.  I have the ultimate "genius" living in my heart and I can simply trust in Him.

Yeah Shiloh, you are not the only one who relies on God and his word. I also have the ultimate genius in my heart and he is yelling at me not to believe your words promoting a 6000 year old universe. My "ultimate genius" is telling me my interpretation of Genesis 1 is the better one and that Gods ways are not meant to be completely understood by man at this time, and that he did create the heavens and the earth in a dateless past. He is telling me loudly and clearly that Shiloh is wrong and will one day find out the error of his ways in these matters.

No one is perfect so don't take this personal. Like the good book says, God looks at the heart while man looks at the outside.

Spock out

[kwikphilly]

Blessings other one,

     To tell you the truth,I really do not think there is any way of knowing how many light years away a star is.......with all the high tech equiptment and scientific theories about brightness & intensity,size & what have you it still boils down to speculation......that is my opinion in a nutshell from anything I have every read about it............

                                                                                                                        With love,in Christ-Kwik

P.S.

Have you started using The Dragon yet?I have noticed your posts getting longer,I hate to think of you deleting the rrrrrrrrrr's & tttttttttttttt"s & going over it again & again,,.......my hands are not hurt,I am just an awful typist & have to do that myself ,I cannot imagine how difficult it has been for you,I keep you lifted in prayer,my brother

[Fez]

Closed for review, I am tired of the reports, and having to hide posts. It has become personal and is mired in accusation and innuendo.