2nd Peter 3:3-4ff

Post Reply New Topic

They are by implication, insult by insinuation, so just listing them wouldn't mean anything as you'd just explain them away or claim you meant something else.

Put up or shut up.

Okay, just a moment while I collect yesterday's crap from you.

You should try thinking once in a while, Sand. For you, it may have been so long since you have that there may be pain, but it won't kill you, it may even help save you.

I have to side somewhat with Sand here. We don't have any real way of knowing what was going on 6000 years ago.

But that doesn't mean that the "young earth" Christians are necessarily wrong, either. Personal opinion, of course, but as a Christian I choose to stay out of those kinds of debates because there's no REAL way to know. The way the Bible reads, and I mean following strictly to the letter, the Earth can be dated to some 6000 years old. But a STRICT reading of the OT doesn't usually take into account the generational gaps of the genealogies. The family trees in the Bible couldn't have possibly taken into account EVERY SINGLE son-father-grandfather relationship. I think the genealogies were more about hitting the highlights. In Genesis, especially, earliest patriarchs lived for centuries, SOME of their sons or named, and then the history usually says something like "he lived 10,000 years after Bubba was born and had more sons and daughters." I'm exaggerating, obviously, but my point is that the Bible only captures the most important details. The Bible is also not overly concerned with the passage of time. If you read the books of Samuel, they read like Samuel was born, annointed Saul a week later, and the next day Saul was fighting against David, is killed in battle, and David is IMMEDIATELY anointed King of Judah. He has a bunch of kids with a few wives, and then steals Bathsheba, knocks her up, the next day has a son who dies a week later. After that, ALL of his kids die and he has Solomon a year later...

The Bible DOES give time frames within which all these things happen, so anyone reading the above account of Samuel will instantly know it's false information and can cite Biblical references that will refute that. But to an uninitiated reader, the events of the Bible do seem to go really fast. I'm sure the reality was much different. Anyone familiar with the story of King Saul might get the impression that he was nothing but a big screwup. But 1 Samuel 13:1 shows that he was 30 when he became king and reigned 42 years. So for a guy who made a few SERIOUSLY bad decisions, his track record COULD have been worse given the amount of time he spent on the throne. The impression I get from this verse is, "Oh, and by the way, Saul was king for a really long time." References to time in the Bible appear more often as afterthoughts. It's not unreasonable to believe that entire centuries could have passed with nothing significant to report.

You also have to be careful dating the Bible because accounts within the books of the OT are not always arranged chronologically. 2 Samuel 21 gives an account of the Israelites defending themselves against Goliath's progeny. But the introduction to the Song of Thanksgiving in 2 Samuel 22 suggests it was written shortly after the death of Saul. The only way I can think this can be explained is that the writer of 2 Samuel wanted to expose David's ascension to the throne, his defeat of Israel's enemies, and THEN "oh, by the way" include a choice story or two, in this case a song, David's final decree as king, some stories about David's military leaders, and some issues concerning some errors David had made in his capacity of king subject to God. Carefully reading this, you have to wonder, "which happened first, 2 Samuel 23:1-7, or 2 Samuel 24? Reading those events in the order they are written as happening chronologically appears to contradict itself. Since the Bible cannot contradict itself and still be a credible sacred document, these passages cannot be read and understood as happening chronologically.

Another point on genealogies: For proof that genealogies are not all-inclusive, look at the lineage of Jesus. There are two distinctly different family trees of Christ. How can these seemingly incompatible accounts be read as to not contradict each other? There are a few explanations. Sometimes different names are given to the same person because people were given multiple names the same as they are today, like perhaps a father's name, a unique name, and a family name in combination: Bubba, son of Jobab from the tribe of Ephraim, but you can call me Bubba Jo. Oh yeah, and nicknames, terms of endearment, and so on. One might also consider that the Legal lineage wouldn't always match the biological lineage. One of the fathers in the Legal lineage might have died without a son and it would be up to that man's brother to help his wife produce an heir that would have taken the first husband's name rather than that of his biological father. A family might have adopted a son as an heir. It could also be that the discrepancies record families that existed in the generational gaps of the other family tree. Neither necessarily had to still be complete.

The genealogies were just that: genealogies. They can't be used as a 100% reliable means of revealing the age of the Earth for the reasons I explained. I would be very hesitant to use Earth-age theories to defend any Biblical world-view. We have no more evidence regarding the age of the Earth than the evolutionists do.

I will say this, though. I think the world is likely older than the Bible indicates purely on face-value. But I also think the world is not NEARLY as old as evolutionists would have us believe. Neither side has an reliable absolute means of determining the age of the Earth.

I know it bothers you when I don't conform to what you expect someone of my views to be like, but you really need to stop putting words in my mouth and giving inferences you make from my statements the same weight as the statements themselves.

Where did I say anything about granting anyone any rights? Where do I say that anyone is exempted from the law?

What makes my hypothetical situation not hypothetical? That you dislike the implications?

Where did I say anything about anyone that's mad at his wife?

For such a judgmental guy, you really seem opposed to the idea of anyone else using their own judgment; one might even call that hypocritical.

Delighted. I know I'm abrasive but meaningfully so. If my comments are unjustified I'll admit it.

Of course, there's the problem of faith blinded religious people who consider themselves mocked when presented with rational evidence of religious tomfoolery. Basically this is a personal problem for those so insecure in their religious beliefs that they react with anger instead of internal self composure.

You mean the ones where you are God and destroy all the human race except those brown-nosers that worship you?

Considering the source of that comment I am not impressed.

Your lack of comprehension of the scientific means of reckoning time and of the nature of cosmological phenomena when even the most rudimentary outlines are readily available on the internet is astounding.

Your inability to connect your suggestions (such as pushing people in front of buses) with random summary execution is one of those things that makes this site so amusing.

its not really that great a thing to predict that people will fight against religion when there are holes in the religion (logic and conflicting scripture betweeen gospels-i said this in the other thread but didnt provide links because there are ALOT of them,but just look at all the differences in john ,luke,matthew etc) and especially when the violent religions stray from the strict scripture (i.e in christianity if someone leaves the faith you're supposed to chase them down and stone them to death) so yeah when this isnt enforced and people dont fear death and they know they wont be killed for speaking up against and oppresive faith, they will speak up.

so talking this claim by peter as a divine prediction isnt very smart, its an easy prediction to make.

None of those things were direct insults. They were mere expressions of my emotional reactions to what I consider fallacious comments. Am I permitted to have personal feelings?

Not if I'm not allowed to without having insults. If you give, you will get though.

Not if I'm not allowed to without having insults. If you give, you will get though.