nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Old Earth: Two replies to DanH
:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)
:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.
:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.
I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)
:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.
:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.