How do you young earthers know

Like I said your evidence consists largely of your own imperfect and fallible interpretation of Genesis as a literal creation timeline. That's all you have.

WM

 

Here's what it boils down to. Either you have faith or you don't.

Does the scientific evidence support that Jesus rose from the dead? No. I guess you better quit doing church then buddy.

Oh, I know..you'll come back and say you believe that one. What else don't you believe? Is the flood real? Is Jonah and the big fish real? Is Jesus raising others from the dead real? Is The burning bush real? Are the plagues of Egypt real? None of these are supported by scientific evidence. Which miracles do you dismiss because you lack the faith?

 

What position are you applying for? Clown, maybe? Humor us some more.
Are you really convinced that you have "forensic and cosmological evidence" that supports your position, or a position other than that which has so clearly been presented to you?

Evidence that deals with the origin of the universe is not scientific. It is not evidence at all. It is in the realm of the metaphysical and must be accepted by faith. That is where the theory of evolution is--a theory that must be accepted by faith. Science is knowledge gained by observation. There was no one there to observe the origin of the universe. Thus evolution is a religion and not science. It must be taken by faith. It has taken a leap from the world of science into the world of the metaphysical, and is simply "myth."

To say that you have forensic and cosmological evidence to support a myth is quite humorous indeed. Please proceed.

 

Much older than "MODERN" man?????????? You have defined "modern" man in evolutary terms already and so we know what you mean. So you don't believe the Genesis account of a literal historical Adam and Eve but believe in a type of man that preceded "modern" man!

 

If that is so, then it should be an easy matter for you to provide Biblical evidence to show how I have misrepresented each of these? I await....

 

Ok - let me ask you this. Since you take a literal approach to scripture interpretation, in order to be consistent you must take John 6 literally. Let's see how that works out for you.

John 6:50-60
New International Version (NIV)

"50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

So, using that literal interpretive method you must necessarily conclude that Jesus' flesh is real food and His blood is real drink. Do you believe that - yes or no? Which miracles do YOU dismiss because YOU lack the faith?

WM

 

Just out of curosity, what is your EXEGETICAL basis for approaching and interpreting Genesis one other than an historical narrative?

Why didn't Peter, Paul or David interpret "And God said, let....." any other way then literal and historical as that phrase characterizes every single day. Does not this mean that God literally spoke all things into existence rather than such things developing over years, centuries, millenium's, millions or billions of years?

Why does Peter, Paul, David and Christ intepret the stated means of creation "And God said, let...." as literal and historical rather than a developmental means or evolutionary process IF science proves the means of evolutionary development rather than instanteous result of merely speaking it into existence????

 

you are jumping out of one context into a completely different context! You are trying to side track this discussion because you cannot answer the objections directly with evidence.

Brethren, don't allow him to change horses in the middle of the race.

 

And that is precisely why I don't provide you with biblical evidence. I don't, because any such "evidence" would be biased and subjective based upon one's human and fallible interpretation of the text. This is precisely why you are unable to discuss the topic intellegently.

WM

 

I am not changing horses in mid-stream - this applies directly to the literal interpretive method and the hypocritical mindset required to hold to it. If you (or anyone else here) will jump up and down and claim that Genesis must be interpreted literally, then you must use the same approach for John 6. I can see why you want to tip toe around that one.

WM

 

I suppose the science of hermeneutics got thrown out the door.

 

You keep going back to evolution even after I have told you repeatedly that I am not even discussing evolution.

WM

 

Since when is "hermeneutics" a science? Really...

WM

 

And with that post we hit page 30 and this thread must be closed. Open another if you find it necessary to do so.