ASSUMPTIONS IN RADIODATING.

[pg4Him]

Well don’t be shy @Tzephanyahu tell us how you really feel. Since I came to Worthy, I’ve been compared to everything from a Satanist to a Judaizer to a simpleton. All because of how I read the Bible. Not much grace around here, let me you tell you. I can hardly comment on a thread without being accused of something.

[Justin Adams]

2 minutes ago, pg4Him said:

Well don’t be shy @Tzephanyahu tell us how you really feel. Since I came to Worthy, I’ve been compared to everything from a Satanist to a Judaizer to a simpleton. All because of how I read the Bible. Not much grace around here, let me you tell you. I can hardly comment on a thread without being accused of something.

Believe it or not. It used to be much worse. I only hope the folk that read this stuff are not put off too much. It is a very poor witness. May God be True and every man a liar...

[Still Alive]

29 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

I'd rather take the Bible literately and wonder upon theological questions, than force ideas into the Bible to answer theological questions.

 

This addresses that:

Interpreting Genesis 1: Who’s the Literalist Now?

A snip:

Quote

The issue is how “literal creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, as I would call them, “inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc.  

But creationists who claim the literal mantel don’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. My view, as readers know, is that we ought to simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living millennia ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it.

Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Frankly, any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

15 minutes ago, pg4Him said:

Well don’t be shy @Tzephanyahu tell us how you really feel. Since I came to Worthy, I’ve been compared to everything from a Satanist to a Judaizer to a simpleton. All because of how I read the Bible. Not much grace around here, let me you tell you. I can hardly comment on a thread without being accused of something.

Well,  I think you are taking my post out of context.  I neither compared you (or think of you) as any of those things, even if others have.  But I don't stand in unity with you on this theory - that is my researched and considered choice. 

However, if you feel I have been unfair or rude to you, please report my original post for the moderator's attention.  I'm perfectly fine with a third party's adjudication of my words.

[Tzephanyahu]

2 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

This addresses that:

Thanks Still Alive.  Feel free to post your own personal reply, rather than the words of Michael Heiser.  

But if some want to play the game of "You think this is literal? then you must think ALL of it is literal!", they won't get very far.  It's a pendulum-approach to argument, which is without wisdom. 

There are times when the Bible should be taken literally.  There are times when it should be understood figuratively.  It's quite clear if you understand the context of the whole Bible how to understand it.   

But let each man be convinced on the matter in his own heart.  If you think the 7 days is not literal and (if you do) that the gap theory is true - okay, but you have no significant evidence to back this up or demean those who understand it literally.  It needs to be understood as mere thought exercise, at best.

Disclaimer: As some have been offended, the "you"s in this email are generic, not personal.

[Still Alive]

6 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Thanks Still Alive.  Feel free to post your own personal reply, rather than the words of Michael Heiser.  

I post both. Think of it as footnotes in a term paper.

[Still Alive]

10 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

But let each man be convinced on the matter in his own heart.  If you think the 7 days is not literal and (if you do) that the gap theory is true - okay, but you have no significant evidence to back this up or demean those who understand it literally.  It needs to be understood as mere thought exercise, at best.

Disclaimer: As some have been offended, the "you"s in this email are generic, not personal.

I firmly agree with that part of your post, with one exception: The "gap theory" and "seven days" theory can be discussed using "evidence" outside the bible itself, and they are also not mutually exclusive. 

The bible also says insects have 4 legs, though I think the writer knew they actually have six.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Still Alive

[Tzephanyahu]

9 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

The bible also says insects have 4 legs, though I think the writer knew they actually have six.

You might find the following, non-exhaustive, article interesting: https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/bible-says-insects-have-four-legs/,  in keeping inline with...

12 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

footnotes in a term paper.

But with regards, to the "evidence" for this theory, in or out of the Bible, my point is that the evidence is not significant enough, for the bold claim it makes.  It seems, with an objective mind, that the motive of theory is stretching application and getting imaginative with interpretation.  I don't think the evidence should be even be regarded as "indicative".   If both parties could accept that then the belief on the matter can come thereafter.   

Belief and faith on the matter is quite another thing for discussion.  But evidence?  There's barely enough for a decent hypothesis, never mind a theory.  

Disclaimer: I'm writing briefly and to-the-point, but not with rude or hateful motivation.  

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

But with regards, to the "evidence" for this theory, in or out of the Bible, my point is that the evidence is not significant enough, for the bold claim it makes.  It seems, with an objective mind, that the motive of theory is stretching application and getting imaginative with interpretation.  I don't think the evidence should be even be regarded as "indicative".   If both parties could accept that then the belief on the matter can come thereafter.   

Belief and faith on the matter is quite another thing for discussion.  But evidence?  There's barely enough for a decent hypothesis, never mind a theory.  

Disclaimer: I'm writing briefly and to-the-point, but not with rude or hateful motivation.  

I think the actual wording in the bible itself very much supports the gap theory.

That being said, I think it's dangerous to read too much into any of the subtle details in a book many thousands of years old written from the perspective of people many cultures removed from ours. I mean, I can read stuff into it, but I should not be "married to" my position since my knowledge is only partial, and we KNOW some of the things written did not mean what some may take them to mean at face value. 

The whole thing is a great mystery in many ways.

[pg4Him]

 I disagree with Michael Heiser about the historical cultural thing in the Old Testament. The Torah is Christ in a mystery revealed later to the church. This is what Paul told us. Every word of the Bible matters to us regardless of culture.  One need not believe cultural obsolescence in order to believe gap theory.  as I said, you can get there purely on doctrinal grounds just reading the Bible as it is. Truth is established by two or three witnesses. The full counsel of the word of God shows us the truth. This particular idea makes the most sense to me in reading the entire Bible plainly and seeing how it all works together.