>
> This is clearly a misunderstanding of GR. I note that you didn't cite page
> numbers. I KNOW that David Bowman is better qualified than I to respond to
> all this, but I also know that you are not doing GR correctly.
>
I'll send you the page numbers, don't worry about it. So, what am I
doing incorrectly. Professor G. Schroeder was the one who came up the
numbers and calculations. If there are errors in what I wrote, what are
they?
>
> Sure, just above an event horizon for a black hole would do the trick. The
> only problem was that the bible is not talking about a black hole, but
> about earth history. You can also get a clock to slowdown if you change
> the gear ratios. But so what. The Bible isn't talking about clocks, but
> evenings and mornings. This is about as ad hoc solution to the problem of
> the 6 days as I have seen.
Genesis describes how the universe came into being (in a very condensed
fashion). It begins to describe human history as far back as 6k years,
when God created Adam. Any more on man before Adam is pure expeculation
on anybody's part.
Bible isn't talking about clocks? We agree. Then my version on the six
days of Genesis being equal to 15+ billion years of the universe is
right on. We have no clocks, hence 24 earth hours is out of the
picture. We have mornings and evenings of a period of time (age). How
long were these period of times? Using the approach I suggest of light
waves as clock ticks we can dissect these times (I'll send you a
breakdown later).
I state again that Genesis' first six days aren't 24 hour periods but
periods of time, ages if you will. Morning and evening are 'beginning'
and 'ending'. The Hebrew word translated day according to Strong's have
many meanings with the principal being 'heat' as in the period of the
day when is warm because of sunlight. There are many other meanings and
they all depend on the way the word is written in Hebrew. Just looking
at the anglicized word isn't enough to extract the true meaning.
If one is going to dice and slice the Hebrew, one must look at the way
the word is written in Hebrew in the specified passage. Only then can
one be certain of the meaning. That is why when you say that the flood
was only local because eretz could be local, only by looking at the
Hebrew text in Genesis 6-9 can one truly understand if the Scriptures
read that the land flooded was local or not, if the flood waters were
global or just localized and if the breathing living beings were totally
killed or not.
And most importantly, what was God saying when he made His convenant
with Noah. A piece totally missing from current discussions. Why will
God covenant with Noah regarding life on earth forever, if only a small
region of the planet(and life) was affected?
> >> This still does not say that the early earth had children playing with
> >> asps. It might say that this will occur in the Messianic Kingdom, but where
> >> is the verse that says it applies backwards?
> >
> I still don't see the application of the asp verses in Isaiah to the
> creation. "Their children will be as in days of old" But it doesn't say in
> Jeremiah WHAT will be as in the days of old? Playing with asps or having
> red hair? Jeremiah says nothing about asps. Nor does he say anything about
> vegetarian animals. If you want to take a snip and paste approach to the
> scripture then from Jer 30:19-23 KJV, I can snip the words "and... children
> ...cause... the whirlwind". While those words are from the Bible, it isn't
> Biblical (although most mothers would believe that that statement is true.)
>
> Your means of interpretation paste different sections with unclear meaning
> and claim that that is the only way to paste it all together.
>
Well Glenn, in South America we have a saying that goes: 'There isn't a
worst blind than the one who wants to be one'
I thought the couple of chapters in Jeremiah were quite plain. Who is
going to rule the messianic kingdom? Where is the messianic kingdom
going to take place?
I ask the messianic kingdom and not the new earth. The 1000 reign of
Christ on earth after the 1st resurrection, before the second
resurrection and final judgment.
The only reason I cut 'n pasted pieces of it was to bring to light
excerpts where it mentioned certain ideas (and if you noted the verse
number is there) because the prophecy is quite large. I wanted to
emphasized these verses, without copying the entire passage.
You keep making arguments from missing words. It isn't sound text
criticism and you ought to know that.
>
> My my, after I went through all that questioning about my church attendance
> with Stephen Jones, I didn't think I would see that again for a long time.
> You have restored my faith that when a person's theology is challenged,
> they will claim that the challenger is not a believer/church goer or
> somehow among THEM. In this way, one can ignore the challenger as an
> 'outsider'.
My theology isn't being challenged at all by your arguments. It is the
Scriptural interpretation that it is being challenged but never the
logos of Theos.
The only reason I brought this into being is at your constant questions
about matters that persons with a background in Biblical doctrine will
know. Unless of course your are playing (which I don't think so) and
just being obnoxious. With you I'm forced to layout ad nauseaum
background as if I was exchanging communications with somebody without
Biblical foundation.
> That is what Henry Morris did when he classified Davis Young
> and I among those who have compromised our geology and thus relegated the
> Flood to insignificance. One certainly doesn't have to listen to a
> compromiser.
Agree with you there. If I believed same as Morris, I wouldn't take the
time to write at all. But I don't think you're compromising. Believe
when I say I'm in search for truth regarding these matters, and have not
found it. Your explanations aren't enough, plus they lack the clean
hermeneutical component.
The Ancient pre-Adamic past is the same as escathology. Nobody knows
for sure. There are pieces of infromation here or there but never a
concise and definite answer.
>
> I am aware of the doctrine of the restoration and I do attend a very
> conservative church. The restoration from biblical evidence is NOT the same
> as the original creation.
>
Could you explain Romans 8:16-23 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with
our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then
heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we
suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon
that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared
with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest
expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons
of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the
creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And
not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
What does Paul mean when he wrote 'the creature itself also shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption' ? Is it eternal life? Is it
the curse of Adam? What have the creature in the bondage of corruption?
Could it be that it is being forced to do that which it don't want to
do? Such as eat meat and kill other creatures? :)
> Please answer this:
> Future restoration has no sun, no moon, no ocean, no night, no sex (see Rev
> 21:1, 23,25 and Mat 22:30. Exactly why do you think it is an EXACT
> restoration when the Bible, which you claim to believe, says clearly, it
> isn't???? If the future world has no death, there is no guarentee that
> there was no death before the Fall anymore than the lack of a
> sun/moon/sex/sea means that these things didn't exist on the early earth.
The events you are referring to take place after the final judgment that
will happen after the millennium reign of the messiah.
It seems that while you're referring to oranges, I'm to apples. So
either lets talk oranges or apples so we both could be in the same wave
length.
I have been referring to the millennium reign of the messiah to take
place on this earth before the final judgment. In other words to events
described in Isa. 11, Jer.30-31 and Rev. 20:1-7.
I'm not referring to events described in Isa.65 and Rev. 21.
>
> I don't deny the restoration, I deny the exactitude of it. And Jesus didn't
> say it was restored to that as "it was in the beginning before disobedience"
>
So what does it mean to restore? If I restore a 1928 Ford, will it look
like a 1998 Ford Mustang? If it does, then it isn't a restoration but
rather a new, very different creation.
>
> In an entirely different language with totally different idioms and culture.
>
What made the Jews such a hard people to manage (by the Babylonians and
Romans) was their adherence to ancient customs, language and culture.
Their total commitment to their ancient beliefs caused them much grief.
Do you rememeber my excpert of Nehemiah? What was one of his
complains? That the children didn't speak hebrew but some strange
languages. And he did a clean up job of these matters. Again we must
know what does it mean for jews to be able to sing and read the Torah in
the language it was given.
> >
> >I hold to a Biblical flood that killed all flesh occurred. I guess Iām the
> >exception to your rule since I hold that the universe is as old as current
> >cosmology says it is: 15-20 billion years.
> >
>
> OK, then I stand most humbly corrected. You are not a YEC. So, what strata
> defines the flood layer and is your evidence of a global flood???
>
I hold to a Biblical flood that killed all flesh as described in
Genesis. Whether it was global or not, I have not completed my research
of Hebrew texts to give a final answer.
Suffice it to say that so far I can see a change in God's attitude when
He first declares that all flesh will be exterminated. There are other
Biblical instances where God declares He is about to do a thing but a
man tries or changes His mind. A couple of cases is Abraham's plea for
Sodom and Gomorra and Moses plea for the nation in the dessert.
Best Regards,
Dario