New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elipe" data-source="post: 1462512" data-attributes="member: 17998">The biggest, most glaring problem with this interpretation is that it pulls a subtle bait and switch into the text. For example, consider that Genesis 1:3-5 says that God created light and then separated it from the darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night". And then there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.The KJV says "And the evening and the morning were the first day."The Orthodox Jewish Bible says "And the erev (evening) and the boker (morning) were Yom Echad (Day One, the First Day)".The Blue Letter Bible website also points out that this is what the Hebrew says, that it clarifies the first day as being the evening and the morning.So if we go by the "age" interpretation of day, this implies that the Earth was in darkness for millions of years, and the light for millions of years, and that this repeated for the other five "ages". Except, that's not what science says happened. Science says days on the primeval Earth were still about 24 hours. Also, science says that Earth is slowing down its revolution, not speeding up. For Earth to have started out with a day-cycle of millions of years and then sped up to the 24 hour cycle is completely anti-science.But the standard theistic evolutionist's cop-out is to introduce a kind of bait and switch, and claim that this is just saying that the millions of years consisted of the standard day cycle. But this is not supported by the text, as the text makes no distinction there. The text clearly says that the first day was the evening and the morning, which clearly establishes the context that "yom" refers to day, and is correctly translated as day.The scientific method as invented by Christian scientists isn't even in use anymore in modern mainstream science. Scientism and scientistry are not scientody.You're right, you really are an advocate for the Devil. Sacred Scriptures should be a guide for science, because scientists too are fallen beings that can sin, and it would be better if scientists made a regular study of the Bible so that they could learn to hold their studies in alignment with Truth, and conduct their science with honor. If anything, we need it more in the scientific classroom, because the profession of science should be governed by faith and the awe of God, not by the funding of greedy oligarchs. The early Christian scientists would also call you anathema for suggesting this.I've talked with others of similar mind as you on this forum, and I've seen this line used before. It's such a ridiculously stupid argument, especially coming from someone who purports to practice a belief in the miraculous resurrection of dead bodies to life. Was it lying when Jesus turned water into wine? By your logic, it would be, because if we had a sample of that wine and tested it, the tests would show that it was just ordinary wine. But where did the grapes for it come from? Where did the alcohol come from? Where did the water go? But really, it's just wine. Oh, and not just wine. Aged wine. Jesus turned water into ostensibly aged wine, which provoked compliments as to its flavor. That's right, Jesus "poofed" fully mature wine. It looks like it's old, and everything you can come up with to test it shows it is old... but really, it's only one minute old.So congratulations, I guess you'd be calling Jesus Christ a liar. Nice job, Devil's Advocate.I've been really restraining myself from calling you Satanic, because even the archangel Michael would balk at making an accusation of such gravitas. But with this last bit, you are blaspheming that which you do not understand. Beware, for making such statements bring you in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which is the one unforgivable sin.</blockquote>

Verification