This is a continuing conversation from here.
Noah Anthony Russell [wrote:]
I don't fully understand the Ezekiel siege chart, is it saying that Ezekiel lay on his side for 7 years rather than 7 days? and then explaining it? That's what it looks like, but just making sure.
And yes I love being as concise as possible, people waste to much time with ambiguous words. Vague is the language of politicians.
That's very intriguing that what you would call evolution I call de-evolution. reversing the terms does work. I just think that because it is a fact that through natural selection we lose and never gain makes de-evolution more appropriate. But we adapt so change for the better of the situation and in that way in can be considered evolution. Interesting. Just when people say evolution it leads them to think that we gain through natural selection when we do the opposite.
Mhmm I like your way of not trusting science in general. It is good because it makes you a skeptic of all science. And all science is done by fallible humans so being a skeptic is good. I've recently learned how insanely biased every part of science really is. Which helps me alot. I know If I just have a bible and read it I can know what I need to know.
And yes I do still gotta work on that. I'm just so used to approving capital punishment that It's hard to work into my head. If God didn't exist then capital punishment would be good I think.. and so that earthly logic gets in the way.
And you are right that I was assuming it was new, I never thought of it being old, but i see how you think that now. That makes me wonder then, if it was indeed old. When did the switch from years to days happen?
And well I am saying with the c14 that it is evidence for a earth younger than 20-30k We don't have enough evidence as far as I am concerned to show it to exactly 6,000 years, don't know if carbon dating is reliable to give exact dates like that in any form. Most old-earth believers have ditched c14 to be completely unreliable as soon as creationist found that it more so supported a young earth of less than 30k. And thank you! I've studied it in depth and have challenged experts on it in public, they always just told me in the end to shut up and let them do their job(they were angry for not knowing more themselves I believe since I always got the audience to side with me). And yes this is one of my favorite topics, I love all creation science. Of course God can make the world as young or old as whatever, Jesus is all that truly matters. I wouldn't push this discussion with someone I was trying to convert just intellectual Christians like you and I.
And that is an interesting point, but it is easy to get around, I don't define "day" as the earth revolving around the sun. The sun as you stated was created on the 4th day. I define day as 24 hour period half of which is light, and half of which is dark. And so God created light and darkness and it alternated in 12 hour periods creating morning and evening. That works perfectly with a literal translation of day. It is a misconception that we need stars to produce light as genesis obviously proves otherwise.
So Let's assume that this gap theory is correct though, if it is true millions of years passed between each "day-age" then we'd find fossil record as the old earth people believe, but that would indicate death for billions of years as the fossil record according to the old earth believers is full of dinosaurs that have been killed and eaten from the beginning of the fossil record. So as Christians though we know that until Eve and Adam disobeyed God death, sin, and corruption were none-existent. So the day age gap theory directly conflicts with the bible wouldn't you say? Tell me your thoughts of how you get around this, because this is a huge piece of evidence worthy of changing one's views. Fossil record shows death for billions of years(), but we know this billions of years of death and sin could not possible exist before sin entered the world. The evidence that would suggest that the earth is ld would also imply that sin and death happened before sin and death entered the world which is obviously conflicting. sorry might be a bit confusing I can clarify if need be.
And I do agree that some parts of the bible are symbolic or figurative. I just think otherwise on this part of the bible. I'm loving this discussion though, makes me think! I hope you find my definition of day perfectly fits a literal translation of this passage of the bible.
I'll address the video in another post I'm sorry it's taken so long for this one, Had a midterm today that I've had to study for and this past week and a half have been loaded with work and assignments. I have seen many problems with the video the man is not very up to date on the flood theory and how it really works. The video shows that he can sure write a good script and can make some points, but I only found that one of his points held any interest to me. I'll get back to you on that though. and the links you provided as well.
On the Ezekiel chart, its intention is to represent the years. He was on his side a day for each year.
Can you think as a Darwinist? I think so. If gene mutation is real, and I think it is, genes change over time, and those that are better suited, survive. If the ability to develop technologically allows a species to dominate, then that thinking ability has increased. Now, at the same time, you are allowed to and should look at it from a spiritual perspective such that you question whether or not that alteration is necessarily a net gain. I know you look at it the second way, but it will help expand the minds of other spiritual believers if you are able to show them that you understand the materialists' way of speaking and thinking.
From our spiritual view, Darwinian evolution is due to the retardation of the spiritual. The spiritual, according to Jesus, can bring forth simply by believing it has already been accomplished. The unbelief of the materialists, their retardation, drags the whole down. Even Jesus could not do many miracles where the faith was weak. The atheists like to twist that into that Jesus wasn't God or even one with God (same thing in my book). Jesus though was living in the human world of doubters. He didn't say that God was incapable of anything.
I really don't worry about the Trinitarian debate. I reconcile with Jesus's language and don't worry if others want to split hairs infinitely, which in this Einsteinian universe, can't be done by those people now anyway.
We do "gain" through natural selection but only within the context of Darwin's worldview. If a huge physical brain will be required to survive and humans don't self-destruct or experience some too-big-to-live through extinction event, then humans will evolve huge physical brains. However, where we are technologically/evolutionarily already puts us in the position of forcing things as opposed to waiting on "natural" as Darwin meant it. Evolutionists will simply say that, that forcing is inherent in our having evolved up to this point, when tech beyond common animals came in and we became able to rapidly "think" of how to change things. Other species build and can even change quickly but are confined in ways we aren't.
We are though in a race against our own pollution. If we don't start thinking unselfishly (the way the first Christians thought unselfishly), our technological prowess will only serve to magnify the damage we do wherever we go and whatever we do – not good.
I trust "science" for what it does. I know though that there is gigantic arrogance behind much of it. The old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing applies.
I'm impressed that you are seeing that Jesus didn't ask us to perform capital punishment but to refrain from it. Some of the parables are about the King coming who will sort the good from the bad and slaughter the bad. The only way to read that consistently with Jesus's admonitions to us is to realize that the spirit is emotional and reaches the stage of not taking it anymore, not putting up with it any further, and purging just as there are "natural" purgative events. The spirit has been wrathful. I see though in scripture a running debate and evolving understanding concerning the character of God. The God that showed through Jesus is not the wrath. Yet, Jesus doesn't say there is no wrath and he doesn't say that he will stop the wrath but that we are not to be it (the wrath).
As for the Old Earth concept not being new, there isn't some line of demarcation I can show you in the mundane that would convince you in the typical sense. I read Genesis as day/age and always have if memory serves. I can't for the life of me assume that once upon a time, all humans thought extremely literally and not spiritually or figuratively (at least within the last 6 thousand years), which is what the atheists would have us believe. Jesus spoke of the four corners of the Earth, so to speak, but that doesn't for a moment put him in bed with the Flat Earth Society of that day. Jesus was entitled to speak figuratively, and did, often. For instance, the Pharisees were serpents, but we can hardly say they were not human beings in full (fleshwise less the spirit of God – pretty huge difference – nothing bigger), at least not unless we are prepared to start subscribing to David Icke's New Age literalism. I'm not going there. Ha!
You asked when the switch from years to days happened. I think you meant age to 24-hour days. There wasn't a switch. There have always been literalists. Jesus came up against literalists often. They thought that when he said we need to eat Jesus's flesh and drink his blood that he meant literally, which of course he did not in the sense those literalists were taking it. The Roman Catholics have struggled with this all along. They claim Transubstantiation as the literal, material, transformation of the wafer and wine into flesh and blood. However, Jesus gave his disciples regular bread and wine to eat and drink and told them to do it in remembrance of him in terms of the real bread and wine. The Roman Catholic bread and wine does not morph into human flesh and human blood while still looking to everyone like the same bread and wine before the priest muck about. I know they don't like my saying it, but it's true. They're stuck in a zone between literal and figurative, "Fundamentalist" and whatever I am.
The whole thing comes down to semantics and where the literal and figurative start and end. At the end of the day (eternity), we really do live off God's "body." I have no problem with reconciling myself to that at all. I have no problem giving God the credit, not that I have to give it for it to be God's.
I'm not aware of "Most old-earth believers have ditched c14 to be completely unreliable." My understanding is still that C-14 is generally considered to be valid up to 50-60K years. If you can point to where I can see Old Earth Creationists letting go of C-14, I'd be interested in reading about it. It's not something I've delved into as an Old Earth Creationist, per se. I really don't know whether I fit that description anyway. I'm not sure if I can say Creation or Creationist and be speaking the same language as most Protestants. I tend to think I would express views that most if not all haven't heard before.
"I love all creation science." I'm glad to know someone who does. I figure you were raised on it in great detail. I was not at all – quite the contrary. So, we can work on it so that we can each come to speak the other language, which won't hurt either of us a bit.
"I wouldn't push this discussion with someone I was trying to convert...." Saying to anyone that God could create a young or old existence is fine, but just springing it on someone without some conversational context strikes me as contrived and, yes, pushy or forced.
"I don't define "day" as the earth revolving around the sun." Take care, Noah, to say rotating once on its axis relative to the Sun as opposed to revolving around the Sun, which is a year, unless you are meaning to say day-year.
"The sun as you stated was created on the 4th day. I define day as 24 hour period half of which is light, and half of which is dark. And so God created light and darkness and it alternated in 12 hour periods creating morning and evening. That works perfectly with a literal translation of day." However, an hour is defined as one 24th (approx) of a full rotation of the Earth on its axis relative to the Sun. Therefore, you're back to where you started. You're using a term literally to support a figurative situation as literal. I'm not saying that, that never applies; but I believe you are forcing it where you need not do that and in a way that will hold you back from the more spiritual/profound view that has greater implications for how human beings are behaving here and how – as with the case of capital punishment we've discussed.
"It is a misconception that we need stars to produce light as genesis obviously proves otherwise." True, within the language of Genesis, but we are still working on the scope of the terms. Remember, the sword is Truth and not what the Romans soldiers carried around to expand worldly empire. The flesh is the bread, but the real bread was not the manna from "heaven" or the sky. The figurative terminology is mind expanding, Noah. The day of Genesis is as the sword or bread, etc. That's how I read it without running into all sorts of difficulties.
"as Christians though we know that until Eve and Adam disobeyed God death, sin, and corruption were none-existent." We don't know that, Noah. We know that the liar from the beginning was there and was full of lies before Adam or Eve messed up, so to speak. Here again, we have to work on literal versus figurative but also how both work together. Jesus spoke of Abel. He spoke of Abel as being righteous and killed. We would be ridiculous not to conclude that Jesus wasn't speaking of the same Abel in the scripture that also mentioned Cain and that Cain and Abel were the direct offspring of Adam and Eve, but we cannot conclude from that, that we are necessarily to take the liar from the beginning, old dragon, the serpent, as being different from his offspring, the lying Pharisees/serpents. Do you see how we must not corner ourselves? Of course the one who tempted Eve was a serpent but not as David Icke would have us picture him.
The literal serpent/snake of today is not the "genetic" offspring of the serpent in Genesis. Human beings are those of us who don't believe. Peter was Satan for at least a moment. Remember? Why we use the term serpent though is telling about the spirit of those Pharisees.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I know everything. I know I don't. My spiritual "knowledge" is still evolving.
As for the animals that were fossilized and the question in your mind about sin, even humans don't have sin until they know it. I suppose I should cite that for you. I don't know the chapter and verse number off the top of my head. Let's see.
"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." (John 9:41)
We can't ascribe sin to dinosaurs unless we can say they knew the difference between good and evil. Lions kill and eat their prey. Are they evil for doing so? We eat. We kill and eat. Even vegans kill and eat. Fasting is good, but Moses and Jesus ended it after forty days. Who goes forever without eating? God doesn't have to eat in the sense that we eat as "biological" flesh. When our flesh gives up our ghost though, will we be eating in the sense we eat now or be "sleeping" waiting for the resurrection of the just? Will we be in paradise with Jesus that very "day," as with the one crucified next to him? Will it be both things in some sense? I figure both in some sense literally and figuratively.
Death is of the soul. The flesh dies. The soul goes on even for the dead. Those who have not been born again are dead even though they are alive. Which languages am I speaking and when in that one sentence? If you can begin to speak that, you and I will be able to speak the language of the revelation of Jesus together and gain mutual understanding and likely, doors will open. Where two or more are gathered....
"I hope you find my definition of day perfectly fits a literal translation of this passage of the bible." Oh, of course it fits. However, fitting something within a context where other conflicts arise is cause for continuing to ask, seek, and knock, in my view.
Do you think that you lose something if you change from 24-hour thinking? Is changing opening the door to not believing any miracles? That's the position of some Fundamentalists (likely most). I don't subscribe to it at all, as you can see.
As for how long it takes for you to find time to reply, don't concern yourself for a moment when it comes to me. I would hate to think that your schooling would be sacrificed for the sake of this discussion. I don't sense that either of us is about to disappear even though this is educational for both of us.
I'll be interested to see where you think the video about the flood went wrong. Just so you'll know, he's a former science journalist. That's why he can speak the language of "science" while also writing a "good" script.
Let me just reemphasize that to be as literal as some Fundamentalists want requires the existence of the Sun and Earth and daylight from that literal Sun in terms of days, hours and even seasons and years as used by atheists. Think about that. The literalism of the Fundamentalist to me is the same language as used by the atheists. The atheist loves debating with the Fundamentalists. They end up hating debating with me.
As soon as you start taking day as light, which you have proposed and which is fine with me, and not as necessarily from the Sun (for a "day"), you may take the next step and start entering into light as the way, the truth, and the life beyond the death that is the life of the Pharisees. Their life is what we mean as Christians by death. Let the dead bury the dead, Jesus said. Did he mean they were zombies, literally? Well, in a way, yes.
Peace to you my friend. I too am enjoying this process. It makes me think as well.
I would say I'd be proud to have a son or grandson like you, Noah, but you know what comes after pride. So let me say pleased instead. I'm sure your flesh parents are pleased you are their fleshly son. I'm sure you are setting a good example for your younger brothers too! More power to you, my brother. If I've said this before, please bear with me and take it as a sign of my consistent view of you. I thought it before, but I can't remember if I've written it to you. It bears repeating.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)