Re: Noah's age?
- From: Jayne Cobb <hsototr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:01:55 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 3, 4:35 pm, lsend...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
Misinterpretations! Ye gads girl. You have a death grip on the
obvious. Of
course there are misinterpretations. But, once again, you have missed
the
underlying point in all of this.
BTW my handle is symbolic. It is interesting how a few days ago you
were telling me how ironic it was that my replies were presuming that
what I had written "will be interpreted normally, i.e. literally" when
in fact I do use symbolism and you didn't even recognize it. I'm
going to have to change it because people around here just don't watch
the right kind of shows.
[...]
I have noticed you repeat this theological point several times but I
don't understand how it is that relevant to any of my comments back
then or now.
[...]
It is absolutely relevant. It is so relevant and so elementary that I
presumed that you both knew of it and knew why it was that I kept
referring to it. You see, this is exactly what occurs when you
dismiss
the literal rendering of the Genesis record.
It doesn't seem that way to many who have done it.
[...]
You have started out your journey in the
evolutionary mindset.
Actually I started out as a Creationist. I arrived at evolution
against my wishes after a difficult and very long struggle. I use to
do the whole Creationist gig. I'd look for any shred of evidence that
supported my 6,000 year conclusion and latch onto anything I could
find. I wouldn't allow myself to look at these things critically. I
was deeply troubled by all this. After some time I realized that
science and religion can be separated and that took care of the
roadblock.
Because of this, you don't recognize what the
bible means when it records that man was "made after the image
of God."
Like your guess is better than mine.
Throughout the scriptures a testimony is given as to God
being the Creator of all that exists outside of Himself. Scripture
consistently builds upon and refers back to the opening chapters of
Genesis presuming a literal / historical interpretation of those
things.
God does not lose his Creator status if his methods were a bit more
complicated than what average humans were able to understand 3000
years ago.
We know that there
are at least two persons in the Godhead in this verse because
it further states, "and the Word was with God." In the Greek,
"with" speaks of a community relationship. So you had the
Logos and God, both prior to any created thing, cohabiting.
Too bad for the Trinitarians it didn't mention the Person who wouldn't
get introduced until the NT.
The
next segment of vs 1 states, "and the Logos was God."
I do find John 1 interesting but I don't know why you think I am
deficient in it.
Now here the Arians (Jehovah Witnesses) have put up a
great stink over. In the Greek there is no definite article
placed before the word theos, or God. So they conclude that
it should be rendered "a god." However, because they are
not honest . . .
Like the Creationists?
. . . (because its originator didn't even know Greek
or Hebrew even though they published their own 'translations')
about Greek grammar, they do not note the fact that in Greek
a noun is already definite. For John to have placed a definite
article before theos would have been equivalent to stating that
the Logos, and the Logos alone, was God. Just prior to this
segment we read that the Logos was "with" God. So it would
be absurd to then write "and the Logos was The God."
I don't know Greek but to me that as translate look a bit more
decisive. Are you saying it would have been improper Greek to say
"Logos was the God" or that John clearly could have said it and chose
to avoid doing so?
[...]
All this leads us right back to presuppositions. Presuppositions
are the foundation blocks of our thought processes. They are
the grid through which we filter and sift everything.
Yeah I can see you have a thing for them.
[...]
However, the
resolve lies in the presuppositional base of each. And it is
exactly here where you and I differ in our understanding of the
correct interpretation of the Genesis record.
In order for an airplane to fly, its wings must provide enough lift
to overcome drag. If they do not then it is self-evident that they
do not conform to the laws of the universe. It must fly inorder
to validate itself. And this is equally true with both of our
interpretation of Genesis. To the degree that our model does not
conform to what is, to that degree it invalidates itself. I can
provide literally hundreds of instances where the evolutionary
model either doesn't remain consistent with itself
Now this is something I wasn't expecting. It is precisely the
consistency of evolution that leads me to conclude God used it as a
method. If you are going to use the same measuring stick I use then
you are going to have to do it with science and not theology.
or with the
laws of what is. In the last post I mentioned the fact that the
moon is moving away from earth. The supposed obvious conclusion
is that at one time it was closer to earth than it is now.
That wasn't an example of science theories being inconsistent.
If we
operate off of what you continually exhibit, uniformitarianism,
then we can measure the rate of its moving away from earth
and calculate back. Evolution has boo-coo time requirements.
Rather scientists have found rocks with isotopes that have a boo-coo
apparent age. Theologically if you chose to believe God created the
universe with an existing apparent age then evolution would be
symbolic and you could still separate science from religion.
However, just this one example would have the moon glazing
the surface of the earth less than 10,000 yrs ago.
You messed up.
How can
that be?
Maybe you did the math wrong.
We shall assume your crazy speed of a yard per year was the average
over the lifetime of the moon. That is about a meter per year. So
10,000 years ago the moon was 10,000 meters closer. That is 10 km.
Let's see, earth has a radius of about 6,000 km. The moon has a
radius of about 1700 km. If the two bodies were only 10 km away from
each other today you could hardly notice they were not touching. Some
airplanes would literally hit the moon.
The moon actually orbits at an altitude over 360,000 km (I'm not going
to bother with a dynamic elliptical model) so if Luna were touching
Earth 10,000 years ago that would mean Luna was moving away at an
average speed of 36 km per year. Right now the moon is moving away at
something like 3.6 centimeters per year. So why was the average speed
something like 100,000 times faster than the current speed? If moon
recession is slowing down that much shouldn't we notice the difference
between Luna's speed during the 60's Apollo missions and today?
[...]
If God is infinite by definition, then it requires the
infinite to
condescend and talk "baby talk" so that we can comprehend.
This is exactly how I see the creation story and the flood story. My
conclusion has nothing to do with ancient grammar.
[...]
No one knows everything exhaustively. In fact, no
one knows one single solitary thing exhaustively. So there will always be
a capacity for misunderstanding -this side of heaven.
And that is where I get the audacity to say maybe it is time to go
back to the drawing board on some of these interpretations that are in
direct conflict with what nature tells us.
[...]
So shrinking the mountains (or not having any) was in your opinion the
method by which God caused the Great Flood? If that is the case then,
theologically, why didn't he leave evidence behind?
What are the rifts in the ocean floor?
Evidence that is consistent with the theory of plate tectonics.
The scriptural record is that
the heavens
above and the earth below released their waters. It was an extremely
rapid
event.
That isn't the same as mountains shrinking or being created around the
flood.
When the crust of the earth ripped open, it caused (and this
is easily
reproduceable and was quite evidenced by recorded historical events)
it
caused the tectonic plates to push against one another with such force
that
mountain rose literally over night.
Almost a quarter of a million people died when an undersea ridge rose
about 50 feet. I would hate to see the tsunami from one rising
thousands of feet let alone from all mountains forming. It is as if
you don't look at these things critically. I know I didn't back when
I was a Creationist.
[...]
If you don't know what
your opponent actually believes and the who and how he arrived at
that position, then you will never honestly debate him.
That does seem to be your problem here.
[...]
Well I'm no Lunar Astronomer but I wouldn't be surprised if at one
point in a round about way the moon did rip the crust off of Earth.
Then why is the moon not made out of the substance that earth is?
I was under the impression that aside from a few items moon rocks are
very much like Earth.
Perhaps the moon was receding near 3 ft per year close to when it
first formed but the recession has reduced over time and is something
more like 4 centimeters now.
Still doesn't account for the time requirement necessitated for
evolution.
Scientists could be wrong about the time requirement for evolution.
However if the average speed of the moon was much closer to what we
see today then evolution would have all the time it current scientists
need.
You apparently do not follow what scientific evolutionist have been
stating with greater and greater frequency -there simply isn't enough
time for the complexity of the universe. They even admit that there
isn't
enough time for one single gene to have evolved, let alone a stand
of RNA or DNA.
There is a consensus on this? I think you are talking about
individuals who have abandoned science because they think their faith
requires it.
[...]
But to answer your question, if 3ft/1m per year were the average (I
doubt this) then it couldn't have hit us more than 360 thousand years
ago. I don't know at what point gravity of one body would rip the
surface off of another but being how Earth is several times more
massive then Luna I think Earth would have won the tug of war.
I don't have my notes on this at the moment. I will have to look up
the
specifics. However, for now, the evolutionary model puts forth this
idea
of the primordial soup. At its present distance, the mood is still
able
to cause 35 foot tides. If it were much closer, the water would
either
flood all of earth or it would be dispersed out into space. The moon
is traveling away which means that at some point in time it must have
been closer. IF it was the least bit closer, then how does one
account
for there being water on the face of our planet?
It's been a while but I do remember hearing someone theorize that
tides use to be in the 100's of feet. Scientists are aware that the
moon had a much stronger effect in the past. I don't think they have
a confident explanation for where or when Earth got its oceans or
air. However as more evidence comes in they might develop one later.
JC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Noah's age?
- From: lsenders
- Re: Noah's age?
- References:
- Re: Noah's age?
- From: lsenders
- Re: Noah's age?
- Prev by Date: Re: We Are At War III
- Next by Date: Re: 'Harry Potter' Author J.K. Rowling Opens Up About Books' Christian Imagery [SPOILERS]
- Previous by thread: Re: Noah's age?
- Next by thread: Re: Noah's age?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
