YEC Limits God?

[nebula]

"you make it sound as if the Bible was meant to be read at face value by everyone without any research whatsoever."

 

Strawman.  I never said that

I never said you said that. I was telling you how your statement comes across.

There is a difference.

 

"How do you explain the references of "snow" to the jungle tribes of the Amazon? If the Bible was "written for them", it would not include references that made no sense to them, would it?"

 

Right here: http://www.ehow.com/how_2056860_make-snow.html

Exactly. The point being some research needed to be done in order for the people to understand the text.

Again, if it was "written for them", the text would have used analogies that made sense to that people.

 

"Case in point: How would you defend the criticism by non-Christians that the Bible commands slavery? (In the Torah, there are rules for how to obtain and treat slaves.)"

 

Like This;  As mentioned countless times.... there is much to be learned in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  GOD was driving the "Culture" to root out the Centuries worth of Paganism that was rampant to make them a Holy People to testify of His Glory and to Bring the MESSIAH through.....to SAVE ALL!!

Which proves my point. Those slavery rules were not written for "you" nor for 19th, 20th, and 21st Century Americans. They were written for the Israelites several thousand years ago. We have to read these rules through their eyes, not ours.

 

 

Do you believe there was Death, Disease, and Thorns (Fossils) before Adam Sinned?

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Isn't this diverting the issue?

[a-seeker]

 

"History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC"

 

 

I absolutely believe this: people who have grown up as Christians under the assumption that Genesis MUST BE READ LITERALLY and then discovering that perhaps the universe is older than what they've been taught will no doubt get shaken up a bit.  I blame this on their upbringing: it is such upbringing that creates people like Bart Eerman (a staunch antiChristian). They are raised not only to believe that Scripture is inspired,  but force fed a definition of what it means to be inspired--i.e. either creation happened in 6 days or Scripture is not inspired.

 

Very well....

 

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked.  We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture.  If you have stats showing that evolution or OE has actually prevented people from coming to faith in Christ, even though they have been introduced to interpretations that allow for both these claims, I'd like to see them.  In my experience, most unbelievers think Christians are naive or obstinately stupid because they insist that the world is only 6,000 years old; of course, we do not alter our convictions to accommodate unbelievers: many cannot come to faith because they disbelieve in the miraculous, which excludes Christianity.  But I and others with me do not think Genesis was intended by God to be read as read by YE.

 

I think you and I will both agree that it is better for a man to come to faith in Christ under the assumption that evolution or whatever is compatible with Scripture, then to reject Chrstianity because he is told he must make a choice between one interpretation of Genesis and science.

 

clb

 

Sir,

 

Do you believe that there was DEATH and DISEASE (Fossils) in the dateless past before Adam Sinned?

 

 

Let’s define what we mean by death: obviously we are not worried about plants withering. 

 

We are concerned with sentient beings, i.e. animals.

 

I will say yes, I believe animals died before Man’s fall and perhaps died of disease.  This raises questions immediately:

 

Is the death of an animal evil?  Certainly it is not morally evil, for God not only allows but also commands such a thing (sacrifice).

Is it still a state of evil?  Yes….and that leaves us with a problem.  Evil before man’s fall!!!  But actually this is consistent with the central themes of Genesis.

 

 Adam and Eve were given orders to subdue the earth and rule over the beasts and guard Eden—the language of guarding recalls the priestly duties of the temple, to keep out unclean things.  Well, what comes slithering in later? Something unclean.  And do they subdue this creature?  No.  They yield to it.  The account of Genesis leaves room for what I shall here call “residual chaos”.  That is, there were things that needed tidying up—God subdued the great chaos at the beginning of Genesis: he charged man, His image bearer, with a similar assignment.  They ought to have judged the serpent.

 

Even if you reject my “symbolic” or “allegorical” (neither do justice to my reading) reading of Genesis, you will have to admit that it was not as “perfect as perfect can be” so long as there lived there a creature capable of questioning God’s word (i.e. the serpent).  Historically I find no problem (intellectually) reconciling a world in which death and disease roamed free in the presence of sinless man. The NT often attributes disease to the activity of Satan, who came to be identified in tradition with the serpent in Gen 3.

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

 

"you make it sound as if the Bible was meant to be read at face value by everyone without any research whatsoever."

 

Strawman.  I never said that

I never said you said that. I was telling you how your statement comes across.

There is a difference.

 

"How do you explain the references of "snow" to the jungle tribes of the Amazon? If the Bible was "written for them", it would not include references that made no sense to them, would it?"

 

Right here: http://www.ehow.com/how_2056860_make-snow.html

Exactly. The point being some research needed to be done in order for the people to understand the text.

Again, if it was "written for them", the text would have used analogies that made sense to that people.

 

"Case in point: How would you defend the criticism by non-Christians that the Bible commands slavery? (In the Torah, there are rules for how to obtain and treat slaves.)"

 

Like This;  As mentioned countless times.... there is much to be learned in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  GOD was driving the "Culture" to root out the Centuries worth of Paganism that was rampant to make them a Holy People to testify of His Glory and to Bring the MESSIAH through.....to SAVE ALL!!

Which proves my point. Those slavery rules were not written for "you" nor for 19th, 20th, and 21st Century Americans. They were written for the Israelites several thousand years ago. We have to read these rules through their eyes, not ours.

 

 

Do you believe there was Death, Disease, and Thorns (Fossils) before Adam Sinned?

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Isn't this diverting the issue?

 

 

"Exactly. The point being some research needed to be done in order for the people to understand the text.

Again, if it was "written for them", the text would have used analogies that made sense to that people."

 

Of course.... you're "Exactly" is the answer to your very own Strawman.

 

 

"Which proves my point. Those slavery rules were not written for "you" nor for 19th, 20th, and 21st Century Americans. They were written for the Israelites several thousand years ago. We have to read these rules through their eyes, not ours."

 

(1 John 5:11-13) "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  {12} He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.  {13} These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

 

(1 Corinthians 10:11) "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

 

"Our Admonition"......who?

 

(Romans 15:4) "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

 

(Romans 14:11) "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

 

If it wasn't written to Everyone....then how would people know that EVERY KNEE (including theirs) will Bow?

 

(John 20:30-31) "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:  {31} But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

 

"That Ye".......who?

 

(Psalms 102:18) "This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD."

 

For WHO....?

 

 

 

"Do you believe there was Death, Disease, and Thorns (Fossils) before Adam Sinned?"

 

No Problem I'll start a new thread. 

[Guest]

Limiting God

 

By Shiloh357

 

For millennia, the standard Christian understanding of the text of Genesis 1 was that God created the earth and the universe in six days.  Much of modern science owes its existence to scientists who were Christians.  They were, by modern standards, young earth creationists.   The argument in response to that reality is that when many of these scientists were alive there were no competing, or alternative views existed.  This claim is false. There were those who proposed evolution and thus an older earth well before Charles Darwin came on the scene.

 

The old earth view per-dates modern science and has its origin in philosophy.  Many ignore the philosophical origins of the old earth view and that view is advanced as if it were scientific, proven fact.    Science has been desperately trying to prove that philosophical assumption for decades, to no avail.  All of the dating methods used so far work from the assumption of an old earth and begin with assumptions that skew how evidence is gathered and interpreted.  The dating methods used by scientists provide erroneous results, dating recently created rock formations to be millions of years older than they are known to be.

 

One of the most astonishing claims by those believers who hold to an old earth model is that we, who hold to the young earth model, are limiting God.   God we are told, is not bound by time, so limiting creation to six days is limiting God who could have created the universe in billions of years.  Since God is outside of time, there is no reason, we are told, to limit God to a mere six days.   But is it really the case that we are limiting God?

 

The issue is not whether or not God is bound or limited by time.  God is eternal, and of course is outside of time and is not bound by linear time as we know it.   So that point is not in dispute.  It is not about whether or God is limited by time.  The issue is, what has God revealed to us in His word?    What does God say He did?   We can sit around all day dreaming up scenarios where God could have done this or that, but those are meaningless speculations and do not provide substantive or intelligent reasons to discard a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  God could have done it any way He wanted in any amount of time, but the issue for us is not what God could have done, or in how long He could have done it.  The question for us centers around what God said He did.

 

God said He created the earth is six days.   In Exodus 20:11 God told the Israelites that their Sabbath observance was rooted in the fact that God created in six days and rested on the seventh day.   How would those Israelite slaves have understood what God said?   Would these former slaves standing there still dressed in the rags they wore as slaves, understood six days to mean billions of years?  It is unlikely.  Another place where God makes the same claim of a six day creation is in Exodus 31:15-17:

 

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.  (Exodus 31:15-17)

 

You will note not only the repeated claim that the heavens and earth were made in six days, but note also the emphatic nature of the commandment.  They were to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations (Heb. l’dorot), as a perpetual (l’olam) covenant and as a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel forever (l’olam).  So if God wanted to communicate to these people that the creation of the earth and heavens were longer than six days, He had the perfect opportunity to make that clear.  God is perfectly able to communicate clearly with us and doesn’t play word games with us.

 

One argument is that God was simply speaking in terms that ancient people could conceive of, that they had no concept of long epoch periods of time.   But the Bible speaks to ancient people in terms of longer periods of time.  The word “olam” is used to refer to long indeterminate time periods where eternity and the dateless past and dateless future is concerned.  It doesn’t mean endless continuous time, but refers to long indeterminate, successive periods of time.   God speaks to ancient people in terms of other long periods of time (Gen. 1:14, II Pet. 3:8).  He could have used the Hebrew word “dor” which also means long periods of time. It is a word that refers to posterity and is often used to communicate perpetual ongoing generations in the Hebrew text (l'dorot).

 

But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation.  The assumptions made by the scientific community are the filter through which the Bible must be sifted and word of God is believed only inasmuch, as it can be modeled around the theories and assumptions of sinful men.   The evolutionary claims of science regarding the age of the earth have become the standard measure of truth to which the Bible must conform as an obedient slave.  Thus the limits being placed upon the Bible and by extension, on God, comes from those who reject a literal interpretation of God's word.

 

~

 

Say

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalms 12:6

 

What....

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

 

~

 

What discussion were you hoping to generate by this?  This is a forum, remember?  Was there a question hanging somewhere in there?

 

It's not out of the norm to post a piece presenting your POV in the forum. Many of us have done this from time to time. It's perfectly legit to open a discussion this way.

 

 

It Would Seem That On Worthy

 

And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments. Psalms 119:43

 

Mostly, Jesus Rules

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

So Peace

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

Out

 

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12

 

Beloved

 

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

 

For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 2 Corinthians 4:13-16

 

~

 

In Other Words

 

The Bible  contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

 

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable.

 

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.

 

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

 

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter.

 

Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

 

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

 

It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet.

 

Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.

 

It is a mine of wealth, a Paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

 

It is given to you in life, will be open in the judgment, and be remembered forever.

 

It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts.

 

From The Front Of My Gideon New Testament

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

The Point, as I see it is....

 

"But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation."

 

It's Juxtaposing, Biblical Authority vs "science" or mans authority and highlighting the concept of filtering ones hermeneutics through science rather than the WORD.

 

It places the reader in that all to familiar position of................................ MAKING A CHOICE!!

 

 

It's a Poignant and very Illuminating Piece, IMHO.

 

I suppose I must be resolved to never tire of saying this:  NO!!! It is juxtaposing man's interpretation of Biblical authority with man's interpretation of nature.  It is the exegesis of one of God's books compared with the exegesis of the other of God's books.  Two books.....both by God....in discussion with each other.  Augustine.

 

clb

 

 

"man's interpretation of Biblical authority"

 

??  So it depends on what man thinks of Biblical Authority?  So the question and only question......is GOD'S WORD Authoritative?  It's a Yes or No answer, no GREY AREA.

 

"with man's interpretation of nature."

 

Or "science", right?

 

(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

Anything CREATED is the CREATURE........nature is one of the CREATURES because it was CREATED.

 

 

"with the exegesis of the other of God's books"

 

I just have ONE BOOK....The Holy Bible (AKJV)

 

 

"Augustine."

I see.  You cannot see that there is a difference between objective truth (God's Word as He intended it which is ABSOLUTELY AUTHORATATIVE) and the difficult and somewhat subjective process of arriving at that truth (through exegesis, which is at times fallible).  Can you really not see the difference between God's INFALLIBLE WORD and man's FALLIBLE EXEGESIS of that Word?  Or do you not want to because it is frightening to think that reading the Bible is not so simple as you would like?  I am really at a loss with some of you guys.

 

From this I must assume: a) you have never once consulted a commentary (i.e. one man's interpretation) for difficult passages? b) you never, EVER read a translation of the Bible; ALWAYS you read in the original language.  c) you have access to the actual, first edition copies of Scripture (the very parchment that Paul touched with pen) and therefore have no need of the translations which are based on textual criticism?

 

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

What disussion were you hoping to generate by this?  This is a forum, remember?  Was there a question hanging somewhere in there?

 

It's not out of the norm to post a piece presenting your POV in the forum. Many of us have done this from time to time. It's perfectly legit to open a discussion this way.

 

Never said it wasn't legit; just didn't know what he was hoping for.

[nebula]

"Exactly. The point being some research needed to be done in order for the people to understand the text.

Again, if it was "written for them", the text would have used analogies that made sense to that people."

 

Of course.... you're "Exactly" is the answer to your very own Strawman.

How is that a strawman?

You are making the claim that the Bible is meant for everyone and in such a way that everyone would understand it, correct?

Thus Genesis 1 should be understood at face value through anyone's perspective and understand its meaning, correct?

If not, please explain how I am misunderstanding you.

 

"Which proves my point. Those slavery rules were not written for "you" nor for 19th, 20th, and 21st Century Americans. They were written for the Israelites several thousand years ago. We have to read these rules through their eyes, not ours."

 

(1 John 5:11-13) "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  {12} He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.  {13} These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

 

(1 Corinthians 10:11) "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

 

"Our Admonition"......who?

 

(Romans 15:4) "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

 

(Romans 14:11) "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

 

If it wasn't written to Everyone....then how would people know that EVERY KNEE (including theirs) will Bow?

 

(John 20:30-31) "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:  {31} But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

 

"That Ye".......who?

 

(Psalms 102:18) "This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD."

 

For WHO....?

 

Are you claiming by this that the Scriptures were to have no bearing, meaning, or relevance to the people before Jesus' resurrection?

 

If not, then please clarify. For this is how your presentation is coming across.

 

 

Likewise, if Genesis was written for us, why is there no mention of scientific principles?

 

And as I asked before, why do the historical accounts leave out the names of the Pharoahs?

 

And again, why make mention of such things as "green pastures" when that phrase gives us a false impression of what was being spoken of?

[nebula]

What disussion were you hoping to generate by this?  This is a forum, remember?  Was there a question hanging somewhere in there?

It's not out of the norm to post a piece presenting your POV in the forum. Many of us have done this from time to time. It's perfectly legit to open a discussion this way.

Never said it wasn't legit; just didn't know what he was hoping for.

 

OK. I thought it was obvious his point was to promote an anti-old earth position and a pro-young earth position

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC"

 

 

I absolutely believe this: people who have grown up as Christians under the assumption that Genesis MUST BE READ LITERALLY and then discovering that perhaps the universe is older than what they've been taught will no doubt get shaken up a bit.  I blame this on their upbringing: it is such upbringing that creates people like Bart Eerman (a staunch antiChristian). They are raised not only to believe that Scripture is inspired,  but force fed a definition of what it means to be inspired--i.e. either creation happened in 6 days or Scripture is not inspired.

 

Very well....

 

.....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked.  We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture.  If you have stats showing that evolution or OE has actually prevented people from coming to faith in Christ, even though they have been introduced to interpretations that allow for both these claims, I'd like to see them.  In my experience, most unbelievers think Christians are naive or obstinately stupid because they insist that the world is only 6,000 years old; of course, we do not alter our convictions to accommodate unbelievers: many cannot come to faith because they disbelieve in the miraculous, which excludes Christianity.  But I and others with me do not think Genesis was intended by God to be read as read by YE.

 

I think you and I will both agree that it is better for a man to come to faith in Christ under the assumption that evolution or whatever is compatible with Scripture, then to reject Chrstianity because he is told he must make a choice between one interpretation of Genesis and science.

 

clb

 

Sir,

 

Do you believe that there was DEATH and DISEASE (Fossils) in the dateless past before Adam Sinned?

 

 

Let’s define what we mean by death: obviously we are not worried about plants withering. 

 

We are concerned with sentient beings, i.e. animals.

 

I will say yes, I believe animals died before Man’s fall an. d perhaps died of disease This raises questions immediately:

 

Is the death of an animal evil?  Certainly it is not morally evil, for God not only allows but also commands such a thing (sacrifice).

Is it still a state of evil?  Yes….and that leaves us with a problem.  Evil before man’s fall!!!  But actually this is consistent with the central themes of Genesis.

 

 Adam and Eve were given orders to subdue the earth and rule over the beasts and guard Eden—the language of guarding recalls the priestly duties of the temple, to keep out unclean things.  Well, what comes slithering in later? Something unclean.  And do they subdue this creature?  No.  They yield to it.  The account of Genesis leaves room for what I shall here call “residual chaos”.  That is, there were things that needed tidying up—God subdued the great chaos at the beginning of Genesis: he charged man, His image bearer, with a similar assignment.  They ought to have judged the serpent.

 

Even if you reject my “symbolic” or “allegorical” (neither do justice to my reading) reading of Genesis, you will have to admit that it was not as “perfect as perfect can be” so long as there lived there a creature capable of questioning God’s word (i.e. the serpent).  Historically I find no problem (intellectually) reconciling a world in which death and disease roamed free in the presence of sinless man. The NT often attributes disease to the activity of Satan, who came to be identified in tradition with the serpent in Gen 3.

 

clb

 

 

"I will say yes, I believe animals died before Man’s fall and perhaps died of disease"

 

"This raises questions immediately:"....

 

I couldn't have said that better myself:

 

(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

 

(Genesis 3:17-18) "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

 

The "CURSE" wasn't just for Man...."cursed is the ground".  Did you know there are Fossilized Thorns in with all the other DEAD Things?

 

GOD Says...."Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth".   As in..... NOW it will; As IN,  it wasn't there before!!

 

QUESTION:   Why would God "curse" the earth with thorns and thistles if they were already there?

 

 

(Isaiah 65:20-25) "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.  {21} And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.  {22} They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.  {23} They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.  {24} And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.  {25} The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."

 

Credit to Shiloh for this.....

 

"You will notice that it is not just the human condition that undergoes a change when sin is removed. All of creation was effected.  It, therefore, follows that when sin came into the physical world via Adam's disobedience, there was a change in all of creation."

 

 

SO.........If death and disease (the clear result of SIN) was before Adam Sinned, why the need for a KINSMEN REDEEMER?

[a-seeker]

 

What disussion were you hoping to generate by this?  This is a forum, remember?  Was there a question hanging somewhere in there?

It's not out of the norm to post a piece presenting your POV in the forum. Many of us have done this from time to time. It's perfectly legit to open a discussion this way.

Never said it wasn't legit; just didn't know what he was hoping for.

 

OK. I thought it was obvious his point was to promote an anti-old earth position and a pro-young earth position

 

gotcha.  I looked back at it.  I guess I am use to forums opening up with a question, not a thesis.  It's my fault.  I just have to adapt to this forum.

 

clb