Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 211 of 316 (505400)
04-11-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Peg
04-07-2009 3:44 AM


Peg responds to me:
quote:
does that mean you've changed your belief in a 6,000 year old earth?
Huh? Where did I say I thought the earth was only 6000 years old?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Peg, posted 04-07-2009 3:44 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Peg, posted 04-17-2009 11:07 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 212 of 316 (505401)
04-11-2009 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by jaywill
04-07-2009 7:42 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
What are you, the site Moderator of your own thread ?
Yes. If you don't like it, start your own.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by jaywill, posted 04-07-2009 7:42 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jaywill, posted 04-12-2009 7:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 213 of 316 (505402)
04-11-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by jaywill
04-07-2009 7:58 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
the word created is only used in Genesis for a limited number of things
Irrelevant. There is no significance to use the of "bara" that makes it something mystical. The use of "bara" as opposed to "asah" is not indicative of anything special just as English "create," "made," "fashioned," etc. do not indicate anything special.
After all, Genesis 1 uses both words to describe the origin of humans:
Genesis 1:26: va.yo.mer e.lo.him na.a.se a.dam be.tsal.me.nu kid.mu.te.nu ve.yir.du vid.gat ha.yam u.ve.of ha.sha.ma.yim u.vab.he.ma u.ve.khol-ha.a.rets u.ve.khol-ha.re.mes ha.ro.mes al-ha.a.rets:
And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
Genesis 1:27: va.yiv.ra e.lo.him et-ha.a.dam be.tsal.mo be.tse.lem e.lo.him ba.ra o.to za.khar u.ne.ke.va ba.ra o.tam:
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
If there were truly some sort of mystical significance to the use of "bara," why would god talk about "making" humans using "asah"?
quote:
And if Rrhain boasts so much that only the Jews understand Genesis
Incorrect. Please show me where I have ever said anything that even approaches "only the Jews" understand Genesis.
What I have said, what I have always said, is that Genesis was written by Jews and for Jews and thus can only be understood in a Jewish context. This hardly means that only Jews understand it. It simply means that trying to impose a Christian interpretation on it immediately fails.
quote:
I would like to know how many orthodox Jewish readers of Genesis would agree with his insistence in a 6,000 year old universe from the text of Genesis.
(*chuckle*)
You do understand the difference between "literal" and "metaphorical," yes? At any rate, the answer is that they all agree that the Bible gives a timeline of about 6000 years since, after all, the Jewish calendar (which counts from the beginning of everything) has the year being 5770.
Of course, that requires a literal interpretation. I acknowledged this up front. Is there a reason why you keep forgetting this and trying to make it personal?
And since when did Orthodox Judaism become the sole arbiter of Judaism?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by jaywill, posted 04-07-2009 7:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by jaywill, posted 04-12-2009 8:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 214 of 316 (505403)
04-11-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by jaywill
04-08-2009 7:44 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Even Jewish thought includes a concept that inspite of 24 hour solar days in Genesis, the creation event could have taken place billions of years before the six days.
Then why does the Jewish calendar, which starts from the beginning, place the year at only 5770?
Oh, that's right: Because the text says only about 6000 years have passed. If one starts saying that it isn't supposed to be taken literally, then anything is possible. Of course, I admitted this up front. Is there a reason why you keep forgetting that and trying to make it personal?
quote:
My point is that if you are going to attempt to make Genesis "off limits" to non-Jews to interpret
Where have I ever said anything that even hints at that? Full quotes in complete context, please.
Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.
What I have said is what I have always said: Genesis was written by Jews and for Jews and thus can only be understood in a Jewish context. This hardly means that non-Jews can't understand it. I can study ancient Norwegian mythology and understand it without having to be a Viking.
Instead, what it means is that I cannot impose other conceptualizations of the world on top of it and expect to be taken seriously.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by jaywill, posted 04-08-2009 7:44 AM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 215 of 316 (505404)
04-11-2009 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by jaywill
04-10-2009 11:23 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
But the calling of Abraham was clear.
And how, exactly, does this make the timeline of the Bible something other than about 6000 years?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by jaywill, posted 04-10-2009 11:23 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 216 of 316 (505474)
04-12-2009 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Rrhain
04-11-2009 5:13 AM


Yes. If you don't like it, start your own.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.
I don't have to do that. As a matter of fact I think I will continue with just the thought I have been pressing from the beginning.
It makes no difference to the age of the universe in Genesis.
In other words, if anyone wants to know what the Bible says about how long ago the creation came into being out of nothing, geneologies one way or another are irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 5:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Rrhain, posted 04-17-2009 4:09 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 217 of 316 (505484)
04-12-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Rrhain
04-11-2009 5:41 AM


Irrelevant. There is no significance to use the of "bara" that makes it something mystical. The use of "bara" as opposed to "asah" is not indicative of anything special just as English "create," "made," "fashioned," etc. do not indicate anything special.
There may be some overlap in the usage of two words. That does not mean that they are absolutely indentical in every respect. One Rabbi Nachman declares that there is no other word to express production out of nothing besides bara, the word used in Genesis 1:1 and not in ie. Exodus 20:11 where we are told that "in six days God made heaven and earth."
It is not difficult to understand that a human language would not have a verb originally confined to such a meaning as to cause to exist out of nothing. The idea of doing so would not scarcely be conceived by mankind without the assistance of revelation.
For centries philosophers have stated the human thought that nothing is ever gotten out of nothing. It is understood by some that the Holy Spirit of God would select a word for creation out of nothing which had some overlapping use with other words. You do not have a verse which says that God created [bara] the earth in six days.
After all, Genesis 1 uses both words to describe the origin of humans:
Genesis 1:26: va.yo.mer e.lo.him na.a.se a.dam be.tsal.me.nu kid.mu.te.nu ve.yir.du vid.gat ha.yam u.ve.of ha.sha.ma.yim u.vab.he.ma u.ve.khol-ha.a.rets u.ve.khol-ha.re.mes ha.ro.mes al-ha.a.rets:
And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
Genesis 1:27: va.yiv.ra e.lo.him et-ha.a.dam be.tsal.mo be.tse.lem e.lo.him ba.ra o.to za.khar u.ne.ke.va ba.ra o.tam:
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
If there were truly some sort of mystical significance to the use of "bara," why would god talk about "making" humans using "asah"?
Firstly, concerning what is not mystical you should also have considered that it is exceedingly practical that the sun and moon were needed to be created [bara] before green vegetation existed. The sun was [asah] made on the fourth day. Green plants were made before that.
So appoint or made is the far less mystical word to apply to the sun on day four rather than create. And it does not say that the sun was created [bara] after the green plants, but that it was made [asah] (Gen. 1:16).
One of the words used to define asah is appoint.
Now Gen 1:26 and 27 has been used to prove exact equivalance in asah and bara. But it is not strong enough for me because God could "appoint" man in His own image when He "created" man.
In other words the two verses could be understood as God desiring to appoint a creature in His own image. So He created man to be the object of that appointment.
In the Old Testament asah is sometimes a part of a personal name. It is rendered appropritely by the English "appointed." In 2 Samuel 2:18 the name Asasel means "God has appointed." In Second Kings 12:14 Asahiah means "Jah has appointed." In First Chronicles 4:35 we have Asihel or "appointed of God."
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives a number of meanings of the word "asah", including "appoint", but never the meaning "to create".
So God could accomplish to matters at one time - the creation of man and the appointing of man in His image. That is all Gen. 1:26 and 1:27 reveals in the overlap of asah and bara in relation to man's existence.
Incorrect. Please show me where I have ever said anything that even approaches "only the Jews" understand Genesis.
What I have said, what I have always said, is that Genesis was written by Jews and for Jews and thus can only be understood in a Jewish context. This hardly means that only Jews understand it. It simply means that trying to impose a Christian interpretation on it immediately fails.
No it does not immediately fall. Though I give some relevance to it being written in Hebrew and used before the advent of the New Testament.
Genesis is about the creation of MAN and not simply the creation of Jews. And it may have been written by a Jewish prophet but it is for mankind.
Melchesidek is a non-Hebrew priest of God in the book of Genesis. and Jethro is a non-Jewish priest of God in the book of Exodus. So the books of Moses indicate that God was interested in His relationship with the man that He created in general. So we non-Hebrews have a stake in knowing what God the Creator did and said.
(*chuckle*)
You do understand the difference between "literal" and "metaphorical," yes? At any rate, the answer is that they all agree that the Bible gives a timeline of about 6000 years since, after all, the Jewish calendar (which counts from the beginning of everything) has the year being 5770.
Firstly, I did not intend to mean only Orthodox Jews. That was a mistake.
The professor stated what he did in "Introduction to Judaism". How that relates to different denominations of Judaism I am not aware. But that some Hebrew readers do not interpret the time as you do still stands.
And the Jew Verses Christian concept, I do not like at all. The "One New Man" that the Apostle Paul spoke of as being in Christ has neither Jew nor Greek nor Barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman, etc. In Christ the cultural barriers have been broken down. But that is another discussion.
Of course, that requires a literal interpretation. I acknowledged this up front. Is there a reason why you keep forgetting this and trying to make it personal?
And since when did Orthodox Judaism become the sole arbiter of Judaism?
They are not the sole arbitrator. And my reference to Orthodox Judaism solely was a mistake I acknowledge. And are you the sole arbitrator of Judaism? Do you claim to speak for the only Jewish way to interpret Genesis chapter one ? Far from it Rrhain.
I don't know what you mean by making it personal. Maybe you mean you are taking it personal.
You have asked me to leave this discussion a few times. I have almost been obligued to do so. But I am reluctant to allow you to shew me off with some erroneous posts of yours. It is not personal. It is a matter of the truth of the Bible.
I think it is a matter of superior or inferior interpretations of Scripture in Genesis. Counting years of the first generations of humans to calculate when the creation came about out of nothing, I think, is the inferior way.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 5:41 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Rrhain, posted 04-17-2009 4:15 PM jaywill has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 218 of 316 (505813)
04-17-2009 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jaywill
04-12-2009 7:09 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
if anyone wants to know what the Bible says about how long ago the creation came into being out of nothing, geneologies one way or another are irrelevant.
So when the text says that Adam was 130 years old when he sired Seth, it doesn't really mean that?
Shall we spin the merry-go-round another time?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jaywill, posted 04-12-2009 7:09 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jaywill, posted 04-18-2009 8:48 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 219 of 316 (505814)
04-17-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by jaywill
04-12-2009 8:35 AM


jaywill responds to me:
Well, no. No, he doesn't. He wanders off topic. Let's try it again, shall we?
I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by jaywill, posted 04-12-2009 8:35 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by jaywill, posted 04-18-2009 9:01 AM Rrhain has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 220 of 316 (505826)
04-17-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Rrhain
04-11-2009 5:10 AM


Your opening Post
Rrhain writes:
Huh? Where did I say I thought the earth was only 6000 years old?
I get that impression from your opening post...
Rrhain writes:
It seems that multiple people in this forum have claimed that the Bible does not indicate that the earth is about 6000 years old. It appears that they make this claim based upon a couple trains of thought:
1) The Bible does not give a specific date as if we should expect to find a passage saying, "The Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh."
2) There is some nebulous, non-specificity to the timeline in the Bible.
I say that while the Bible does not give a specific date, it does give a specific timeline which, through a process of simple addition, we can use to come up with a total amount of time for the existence of life, the universe, and everything. If we can then hook this timeline on an actual date, we can then determine exactly how old everything is supposed to be.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 5:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2009 4:09 AM Peg has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 221 of 316 (505832)
04-18-2009 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Peg
04-17-2009 11:07 PM


Peg responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Huh? Where did I say I thought the earth was only 6000 years old?
I get that impression from your opening post...
There is a difference between understanding an argument and actually holding it. That said, my opening post makes no such claim about my thoughts. You added some highlighting to a sentence, but you seem to have missed the key point:
I say that while the Bible does not give a specific date, it does give a specific timeline which, through a process of simple addition, we can use to come up with a total amount of time for the existence of life, the universe, and everything.
You highlighted the final clause, beginning with "through a process of simple addition...." You missed the key point: "I say that while THE BIBLE does not give a specific date, IT does give a specific timeline."
I do not need to be a Viking to be able to understand and analyze the various myths and legends and determine what they say about how the world is supposed to end in Ragnarok. I do not need to actually believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible to understand and analyze it and determine what it says about how old the world is.
I certainly apologize if I was misleading. I would have thought my previous history of arguing for an old age of the universe, the geologic column, no worldwide flood, etc. would be sufficient to indicate that I am simply arguing textual analysis here, not my personal opinion.
I try very hard to keep my personal religious beliefs out of this forum. I don't want people to respond to me by saying, "Of course you'd say that. You're an X." However, I think it is very clear that I disagree with theologies that place the origin of everything just a few thousand years ago. Just in case it still isn't clear, a direct statement:
I agree with the evidence from astronomy, geology, and biology that life, the universe, and everything is very old. The earth is a bit over 4 billion years old with life following right on its heels. The universe is nearly 14 billion years old, from what we can tell.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Peg, posted 04-17-2009 11:07 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Peg, posted 04-18-2009 6:51 AM Rrhain has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 222 of 316 (505837)
04-18-2009 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Rrhain
04-18-2009 4:09 AM


Right, thanks for clarifying that because it appeared that you were arguing for a young earth based on the timeline of the bible.
I would just like to point out in line with that thought that the first verse of the bible gives no such indication. I have been doing some more research on this and I have recently learned that in the opening verse (which is actually the title)
"in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"
the word 'created' is a hebrew verb in its perfect state...its a completed action. This means that the opening verse is not describing an earth being made, its describing an earth that had already been made.
Unfortunately early bible translators adopted a method of translation called 'WAW Consecutive Theory' which is they made all the hebrew 'perfect' (complete) verbs into 'imperfect' (progressive) verbs for the sake of the English language.
this means that the opening verse is identifying God as the creator of the earth and universe that was already in existence, not one that he 'began' making at that time.
So its as you believe, the earth is very old and much older then 6,000 years... the bible is in full harmony with that.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2009 4:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2009 1:41 PM Peg has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 223 of 316 (505846)
04-18-2009 8:24 AM


I would like to add helpful couple of paragraphs about interpreting the Bible with other parts of the Bible. The purpose of the post is to emphasize that all matters of the subject of time and creation may not be in one place in Scripture, ie. in Genesis.
We have to put portions of the Word together and compare them....God's speaking is not completed through just one text. In the books of the prophets we are told that God's word is "here a little, there a little" (Isa. 28:13). Therefore, no Bible student should interpret a passage according to that passage alone. This is to interpret according to its own interpretation [1 Pet. 1:20]....Here God shows us a principle: We must compare our reading of one passage of the Scriptures with other passages. We cannot base our interpretation on just that text alone. In tackling a teaching found in the Bible, we have to look for explanations of this teaching from other passages of the Bible. This is very important....It is much safer for us to compare one verse with ten other verses. If we can only find five verses, it is better, but not as good as ten verses. The more comparisons we make, the better it is. If there is only one verse that says something, we have to be careful; we cannot build something big upon one isolated instance. Otherwise, we will end up with trouble. It is not very trustworthy to base everything on one verse. In reading the Bible we have to compare. We cannot interpret anything by the text of one passage alone. We must have the confirmation of other passages. (Watchman Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Set Three, Volume 54, Section Two, pp. 83-84) [emphasis added]
In studying the Word, one must view things from a broad angle, yet concentrate his study on the detailed points. In studying the Word, we must first find the main highway and deal with the side streets afterward. This does not mean that the small points are not important; it means that we are putting them aside until later. (Watchman Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Set Two, Volume 41, Section Two, pp. 49-51) [emphasis added]
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2009 1:46 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 224 of 316 (505847)
04-18-2009 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Rrhain
04-17-2009 4:09 PM


if anyone wants to know what the Bible says about how long ago the creation came into being out of nothing, geneologies one way or another are irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when the text says that Adam was 130 years old when he sired Seth, it doesn't really mean that?
Shall we spin the merry-go-round another time?
If anyone wants to know what the Bible says about how long ago the creation came into being out of nothing, geneologies one way or another are irrelevant.
There is an unspecified amount of time between what occured Gen.1:1 and 1:2. The earth created became without form and void. Judgment of God fell upon the original creation. How long ago before the Genesis six days, we do not know.
Now I fractured my wrist. So I am very limited here writing with one hand.
As for going around in circles, there is no need to repeat this. How old Adam was at ANY point will not yield the age of the universe in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Rrhain, posted 04-17-2009 4:09 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2009 1:47 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 225 of 316 (505849)
04-18-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Rrhain
04-17-2009 4:15 PM


I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.
In other words you are saying that the ONLY biblical arguments you will acknowledge about the earth's age are geneological arguments.
I think I already exposed the weakness in that prejudiced concept of yours.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Rrhain, posted 04-17-2009 4:15 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2009 1:48 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024