nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 321:
Line 321: + + +
→Reply to All: What the debate is over.
I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)
I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)
The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)
== Primeq's edits ==
== Primeq's edits ==