[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: Questions Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Jan 23, 2024 Author: Vicomte13 Post Date: 2024-01-23 12:12:33 by Vicomte13 Keywords: None Views: 5362 Comments: 26 People believe different things, based on differing evidence. Here, there are several people who believe, ardently, in their heart of hearts, that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is perfect, and directly from God. Nothing in it is wrong, or can be. I do not ask these questions to mock anyone's belief; I ask to understand it, the extent of it. Were I ever to adopt such a belief, I would need to be convinced it was true. I do not say that I cannot be convinced; that is not true. I COULD BE convinced, were I shown the proper evidence. So, let me ask my questions. I would like a thoughtful answer from a KJV- Only believer. Of course, once I send this, it is in the air, and each of you may do as you please with it. It is much easier to attack me, claiming that my question is insincere, claiming to know the interior of my heart, etc. And in this way, to dodge the question. But the question remains. I would hope that we could avoid that step, and just answer my question. (To help, I will give what I believe the KJV-Onliest's response would be. If it is right, the KJV-Onliest could simply aver that: "Yes, that is correct." If it is wrong, he may correct it.) Question 1: Following the time frame and the genealogies present in. Genesis, Chapters 1-5, the earth is approximately 6000 years old. There can be some fluctuation and some uncertainty, especially in connecting Moses to a particular reign of a particular Pharaoh in Egypt. This might add a few hundred years, here and there. The Septuagint Greek, likewise, renders a world that is about 12,000 years old, give or take, but we are using the KJV, and it is about 6000 years old, about 2000 years before the Flood, and 4000 years since. Do you agree? My view of what the KJV-Onliest will state: "Yes, that is correct. If you add up the years of the genealogy tables in Genesis 4 and trace them forward, you get a precise number of years from Adam to the Flood, and there are references to the ages of Adam's sons and their offspring after the Flood, to the sons of Isaac and the descent into Egypt, and then to the number of years the Hebrews were in Egypt. Connecting Moses' Pharaoh to the historical timeline is imperfect, but it was in Egypt, and we can narrow it to a certain band of time, perhaps 100-200 years. So, we cannot state with certainty that the world was created on EXACTLY October 7, 3761 BC, as the Orthodox Jews do, because the Bible record gets fuzzy in terms of exact lifespans and dates with Moses, as a ballpark that is about right, give or take a few years. The world is NOT 15,000 years old, let alone 4.5 billion. Plants were created on the third day of creation, and various animals were created on the 5th Day, and the 6th, with the creation of Adam being last, but this was all in 3 days. Now, "a day in the sight of God is a thousand years" the KJV says, so MAYBE, just MAYBE, there was a 3500 year span between the creation of plants and the creation of man. But it says nowhere that a day is 500 million years, or a billion years. So, maybe you could tack on a few thousand years for the first 5 days, but that's it. According to the KJV, the world is about 6000 years old. Maybe 11,000, if one reads those days without men as "a thousand years", maybe not. That is not perfectly clear. What IS clear is that it is NOT 4.5 billion years old. That is flatly contradicted by the Bible." Is that a fair statement of the KJV-Onliest's belief? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: Vicomte13 (#0) Let me throw some thoughts out there in regards to your questions. Firstly I think you are sincere, I believe you're always sincere. I think The KJV preserves Gods word perfectly. I'm not going to say you have to believe the KJV only to be saved. I'm not going to say other Bibles don't contain his word or at least some of it. I do think at least some of them are flawed though. Such as the NIV which seems to call Jesus a sinner because he was angry. I also don't believe you have to believe the earth is young in order to be saved. I do think it is foundational though. I think if you don't believe that and you talk to other people to show them that the Bible is Gods word that it gives them a reason to not believe since you have to change the simple meaning of words to make it fit with what the world is currently saying about the age of the earth. So I think it would undermine some peoples potential faith. I think if you cannot trust the foundation the Bible is laid on then why believe the rest of it many people would conclude. I think the foundation is under attack so Gods word can be discredited. I haven't added up all of the begats but the numbers you throw out in my opinion are in the ballpark. I don't claim to be a Bible scholar or know it all. Even though I may come across that way sometimes by the way I talk. Sorry about that. In Second Peter 3:8 where it says "8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Here is what I notice. It doesn't say a day is a thousand years and it doesn't say a thousand years is a day. It says "IS AS". To me that is saying how can I put this. It is saying that God is outside of time. That what seems like a long time to us is a short "time" for God because he is timeless. It is also saying this in the context of Christs return so that if it is a long time to people it isn't a long time to God and to be patient he will return. If plants were created on X day and it was thousands of years in between. Then everything would die in the thousand of years of darkness it would seem to me. Also I would bet if you did look up day and night in the Greek or Hebrew I bet you that it is the same word used in other parts of the Bible and no one interprets those times as being a thousand years. Also I've heard it said well if a thousand years is as a day and day is as a thousand years then it cancels itself out. Just passing on what I have read. There are some of my thoughts. Unfortunately not many people are here, so that someone smarter than I could give you answers. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-24   0:06:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: A K A Stone (#1) No no, that is what I perceive to be the view of KJV-Onlyists: that the Word of God is True, and the KJV is the accurate Word of God, and that, therefore, when Genesis says that the world is a few thousand years old, that is true. Were it not true, then it Genesis becomes a metaphor or an allegory, and if that is the case, anything else can be. I think you are right on the money in terms of these beliefs. There is no need to be a more accurate scholar; the minute details are not important to my question. The big picture: how old does the Bible say the world is, that is what I asked. And I think you are spot on. It SAYS the world is a few thousand years old, and until the 19th Century and the rise of certain sciences, everybody who was a Bible believer believed that. The writers of Genesis were not writing metaphor; THEY believed that. So, WE can look and say, "well, we think the world is 4.5 billion years old, so we have to reinterpret what is written metaphorically, because we want to preserve our natural beliefs, and yet preserve the authority of the text. I also agree with you about most translations. I don't think that the NIV translators intended to change the meanings, but they did. Every translation made after the mid-1800s was made by minds that either accepted evolution, or rejected it, but they BOTH had it in their minds, and sought to reflect their belief, one way or the other, into the text. If one goes back before the 19th Century, in English you have the KJV, the Catholic Douai-Rheims/Challoner translation, and some older English translations by the Calvinists (the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible). The full KJV (presented to English monarchs at the time of their coronation), contains the Deuterocanonical ("Apocryphal") works, because the Church of England never took the harsh stance of Martin Luther against those books. So, if one buys a full KJV in English, one will have the full deuterocanon in it. In America, the influence of Baptists and other non- Anglican Protestants has made the Deuterocanon a theological issue, and completely removed them from the books. The KJV itself, as used in England, has the "Apocrypha" in it. The only difference is the order of these books, which are inserted within the Catholic Bible at the places they belong chronologically, but which are separated and placed at the end in the KJV. The other thing to know, pre-18th Century, is that the Catholics recognized the superiority of the prose of the KJV, and so in the early 1700s, Bishop Challoner, took the Douai-Rheims Bible, the Catholic translation, and adjusted the language to reflect the KJV in every single place that he could. There are no theological differences in the translations. Where they differ is in certain books of the Old Testament (Esther is the main one) where the Catholics had always used a different base text (Septuagint tradition versus Jewish tradition), and so the language translated was different from what the KJV was based on. In such cases, Challoner left the older Catholic language. If you set the Challoner/Douai-Rheims) and the KJV side by side, you will be reading the same Bible, except in those certain books (none in the New Testament, and only a few in the Old Testament (Esther and Daniel being the ones where the textual differences are most pronounced.) There never was a theological difference between the Catholics and the Anglicans who produced the KJV. The difference has always been questions of Church governance, going back to Henry VIII's decision to declare himself the Head of the English Church (vice the Pope) because he wanted a divorce that the Church would not grant. And so it came to pass that English Catholics and Anglicans and everybody else essentially used the KJV until the late 1800s. In 1970, the Catholic Church began usind it's own new translation of the Scriptures into English, the "New American Bible", which is based on modern English, and uses the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as the base texts, as opposed to the Latin Vulgate. We should recall that the KJV translators themselves were all educated in the Vulgate, and they COMPARED their translations to the Greek texts and Hebrew they had, only changing the words where these differed. The KJV is at heart a translation of the Vulgate into English, with corrections. Revelation in the KJV is a straight translation of the Latin, because they had no Greek manuscripts to consult. This is why I am always happy to use the KJV. It WAS the Catholic Bible, in all of its essentials, until 1970, and the text is still official, just not used in most services. The Catholics don't CALL it the KJV, they CALL it the "Douai-Rheims", but thanks to Bishop Challoner in the 1700s, it really IS the KJV text. Most people don't know this. The Catholics don't, because the Bible is great reading but not the final source of authority in the Catholic Church - the Church is - so the differences in translation don't matter much. The Protestants don't because they don't know (or necessarily care) about what the Catholics have been doing. To me, the KJV, British editions (published with the "Apocrypha" in them) is a complete Bible. The variants in Daniel and Esther don't matter in the conversations I have (because I'm always focused on Jesus, and in the New Testament, the Douai/Challoner Bible and the KJV are the same thing). Of course, what a KJV-Onliest and a Catholic think the Bible IS differs, but the TEXT is the same. I'm a scientific, evolution-believing Catholic, like the last 7 or so Popes. As a scientist, I recognize your points regarding the text. If one takes the text as being the literal revealed word of God, and that God INTENDED for us to have this text to answer our questions, then the text itself is of vital importance. If it is your highest authority, then it has to be RIGHT. That it doesn't happen to be my highest authority does not change the fact that I understand why, to someone with your perspective, the text has to be perfect, because your faith is based on it. While I'll get cute and quote the original KJV with its horrendous medieval spellings and print conventions of 1611 in it, I only do that to be obnoxious. There IS a clear difference in the translations made BEFORE evolutionary theory and afterward. All of those made afterward, but people who either believe in evolution or are worried about it, is inflectd by this belief that the text has to modified to reflect "reality". (The Catholics, because they ALWAYS thought of the Bible as a metaphoric source book and did not place ultimate authority on it (see St. Augustine, writing in the 380s), actually don't have this particular problem of text manipulation - simply because it doesn't matter as much to them. Protestants have to be much more exacting, because it's the literal final authority, so what it SAYS affects everything.) And this is why the KJV is the source text I always want to use when discussing anything across religious boundaries. It's the only way to bring on the most sincere KJV-Onliests (who do the purest work - see the amazing film that guy made), and they're going to disagree with the people who use the NIV more than they do with me about the text, because I know that the KJV text, under a different name, WAS the Catholic Bible used in all English-speaking Churches until I was 7. All of that is to say that I AGREE with you, precisely BECAUSE the KJV translation was really excellent, AND because it comes from a time before the anxieties and fears of the translators about natural science and inclusive politics put pressure on them to inflect the language. I may think that Genesis is a metaphor, but I want to get the language of the ages there. The people who wrote it didn't think it was a metaphor, and I want to know what THEY thought, not some blend of ancient words and 21st Century sensibilities. It doesn't bother me that the ancients got scientific things wrong. Having had neither telescopes nor microscopes, how could they possibly know? They didn't, and that's not what they were thinking about anyway. I know you don't think about it that way, but I do. I would rather have my ancient religion straight, as it was. I'll make the corrections in the physical background to what I know things to be - doesn't change the message for me. You would probably find that approach disturbing, and that can't be helped. What I find disturbing is people messing with the original text BECAUSE they are trying to alleviate their own concerns about what it SAYS versus what they believe. Changing the text itself, in translation, to address modern fears strikes me as dishonest. No! It says what it says. To me, it's better to read it as it really is, and realize from that reading that you have to take it as a metaphor or throw it out completely, rather than change what it is and claim that your changed thing is real. These are all of the reasons why I agree with you that the KJV is the best text in English, the most influential. And while the NAB is fine for Catholics, who don't place the same sort of weight on the Bible as Protestants do (what's important from a Catholic perspective is that they get what Jesus said exactly right, since he's the only authority in or outside of the Bible that can actually move the Church to change directions...and slowly at that), the KJV (called Douai/Challoner) was the Catholic Bible used in Church from the 1700s until after 1970, and still is an officially sanctioned translation. In fact, in a parallel to the KJV-Onliest, traditional Catholics (the Latin Mass types), will ONLY use the Douai/Challoner, which is the say, the KJV. Go figure. I myself prefer to use it in all discussions. Because I am a Catholic, and do believe in evolution, and think that the Jesus ended the land covenant with Israel - and because I see the open conflicts between what Jesus said and Paul, John and James (Jude is writing about Enoch, and Peter just exhorts Jesus and love of each other, so he's harmless in ways that Paul, and to a lesser extent James and John, are not), to ME, by far the most important thing is to get what Jesus said exactly right. And for THAT I think you need the Greek manuscripts used by the Eastern Catholics, translated into exacting English. So I use the Eastern Orthodox English translation of the Patriarchal Text and compare that to the Greek. (Or rather, I used to compare it to the Greek. I have found it to be so precise, with great footnotes, that I have come to trust it and just use that.) Now, to ME, in truth, almost all of the Bible translations get everything important about what Jesus said right, so I'm perfectly happy to pick up anybody's translation - from the NIV to the New World Translation, and go straight to the words of Jesus...and start to systematically attack every part of their traditions that don't comport with Jesus. I do the same thing with the Catholics too. The only difference is that Catholics almost always AGREE with me that, yeah, we should do better. They at least recognize the authority of Jesus. I have found a lot of other people too caught up in their own church traditions to the point that Jesus is ultimately less important to them than the other traditions they place on a greater footing than him. I always internally laugh at this, because it means that I - the Catholic evolutionist - am REALLY the more Christian, since I place Christ ABOVE all else, including all the rest of the Bible. I find that others won't do that...and that it always - in every case - means diluting Christ with crap. It makes people mad when I won't. And Christ in the KJV? Perfect as can be. When it comes to Bibles, I am the KJV's biggest fan. It's an official Catholic Bible (under another name). The Orthodox use it. The Protestants will use it, either claiming (as you do) that it is the only RIGHT one, or accepting that it's old, but still good. You will never find me arguing against using the KJV. Our purposes are different, but the KJV is the best for mine. And of course you think it came from God. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-24   9:10:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: A K A Stone (#1) Ok, now, let's explore further. I agree with you that, if you believe that the Bible is God's Word, and that it is all literally true as written, that evolution and an old earth are completely incompatible with that. I agree that if you read that the world is a few thousand years old, and you read that the world is 4.5 billion years old, these cannot be directly squared with one another. Both could be false, or one be true and one be false, but both cannot be true. As I read the KJV, before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, there was no death in the world. I note that the KJV never describes what we would call plant death as "death". In the Bible, animals and humans "die" - stop breathing - but plants "fade". So, from a Biblical perspective, humans and animals eating plants was not a case of all of those plants "dying". That is the biological view, but it does not reflect the language of the Bible. They did not die. They faded, they were eaten, but they were not "breathers" - souls - in the first place, so their "death" in modern terms, meaning the extinction of a biological function, was not Death, in the Biblical sense, because they were never "living souls" in the first place. So, the eating of plants was NOT "death in then world" in the Biblical sense. Death entered the world because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Before that, there was no death, meaning that animals did not kill other animals to eat. That came about as the result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Do you agree? Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-24   9:52:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Vicomte13, AKA Stone (#2) I am liking this civil debate, y'all...makes it worthwhile reading with strong points made by both commenters. Regards...MUD "NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!" Mudboy Slim  posted on  2024-01-24   9:54:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Mudboy Slim (#4) To me, it's not a debate! I am telling a KJV-Onliest why I agree with him that the KJV (Douai/Challoner to the Catholic) is the best text to discuss the Bible. And I am trying to discuss the Bible from his perspective. My own is my own, and it doesn't matter for these purposes. It isn't really opposed to his on a great number of things. I just want to bring into sharp relief exactly what his beliefs are, and clear away the underbrush of what other people believe, that gets injected all the time. The deuterocanon/apocrypha, for example. This is an old, angry debate between some Catholics and many Protestants. But we don't have it, if we use the KJV, because the deuterocanon/apocrypha are all part of the KJV. They're not in the same order as in the Catholic Bible, but so what? They're THERE. That Luther and the Calvinists rejected it completely, and their heirs have added a lot of anger to that, is irrelevant to us: the Anglicans who translated the KJV included the deuterocanon in the Bible, in a separate section. They did not get so wild and angry as to throw it out. So it's there. So a subject of angry debate with others is simply removed. I don't think there's anything IN the deuterocanon that makes any moral difference anyway, because I think the whole moral law comes from Jesus, so for ME it's not a "Biblical perfection" issue. But I know to Protestants it IS, given what they think that the Bible is. And I note that the KJV translators, in their Anglican wisdom, translated them and left them in their Bible. So the KJV-Onliest and I have no quarrel. No do we really have a quarrel about their importance. He gives no importance to them, and I give no great importance to anything other than what Jesus said and did. This, of course, the KJV-Onliest does NOT agree with, but in THIS context that doesn't matter. The full KJV is great. Oh, and because I don't really believe that it's "inspired by God", I only use the medieval wording and print conventions of the real ORIGINAL KJV to be obnoxious. I am perfectly fine updating the spelling and print conventions. And I know that, really, the KJV-Onliest is too - though having taken the stance that only the original KJV is the true revealed word, he's relieved to just be able to use the KJV with practical modern spelling, not thinking that really makes a difference. I agree, it doesn't, though for different reasons. There is a purity to KJV-Onlyism that I appreciate. His sources are accessible to me. I can read it, and see what it says, and THAT is the final authority. (Now, of course, I see powerful conflicts in the authority, and think that those conflicts must be resolved, and my resolution of those conflicts is to put Jesus on top of it and resolve everything according to him. Whatever conflicts with Jesus is wrong. I am perfectly ready to use the KJV Jesus to do that. While reading "reign of God" for "basileus tou theou" paints a more accurate picture in my mind than "Kingdom of God", that is really nuanced, and doesn't make a difference grosso modo. But here, I'm not pushing this. I am really interested in fleshing out the beliefs, and I am grateful for the KJV as common ground. Because he's correct: if you run around in different translations, you can find a translation that suits you. Having an unchanging text forestalls those games on the part of others, and because Jesus says exactly what I want him to say in the KJV, I don't need to find another translation and am perfectly content to use that text. It's perfect. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-25   9:56:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13 (#3) Death entered the world because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Before that, there was no death, meaning that animals did not kill other animals to eat. That came about as the result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Do you agree? Yes I do. I would suspect they started eating each other sometime after the fall. Genesis 1:30 King James Version 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-25   21:34:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: A K A Stone (#6) y Ok. So what do you make of the dinosaurs? Do you think they co-existed with men and then died in the Flood, and the ones on the ark died out afterwards? Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-26   22:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Vicomte13 (#0) (Edited) The KJV, in my opinion, is translated into English fairly accurately, but with two exceptions. The last book, the Revelation to John (aka the Apocalypse), has mistakes in it which makes the Apocalypse difficult to understand for KJV readers. A literal translation of the Greek, such as Young's Literal Translation allows the Revelation to make much more sense. As for Genesis and the six days of creation. The original Hebrew does NOT say the Earth was created in six days (or the Earth is 6000 years old). The earth was created in six time periods, with each one lasting millions of years. The time periods align perfectly with the six time periods that most scientists divide our creation into. (If the Bible does not agree with historical and scientific facts, it should be thrown into the garbage). The Bible, or at least most of it, is inerrant. It is the translations of it into English that quite often introduce errors. The NIV and other Bibles based on the heretical "Alexandrian" text are by far the worst, and greatly distort the Bible, and especially the Apocalypse making it virtually impossible to understand. (Hence all the weird movies and theories about it that exist today). Barry Midyet interpreter  posted on  2024-01-27   1:38:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: interpreter (#8) So, you think that Genesis is to be taken literally, but that the KJV translates it wrong? Ok. Do you think the ancient Hebrews who wrote it thought that the world was created in 6 epochs, each being millions of years? Or that it was created in a sequence of six days? Do you think that the writers MEANT millions of years, or six days? And given that they probably meant 6 days, do you think that God was directing their thoughts, such that they may have thought that, but what they wrote is nevertheless true, because what is written can be interpreted as meaning 6 time periods of millions of years. Also, do you think that the 6 time periods described in Genesis are the order of creation as described by God, such that the trees, created on day three, stood for millions of years until God created the sun in the fourth period, millions of years later. Or do you think that these 6 time periods were overlapping? Such that he unmasked the sun allowing it to reach the earth at about the time that he started making the plants grow? Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-27   11:25:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: interpreter (#8) As for Genesis and the six days of creation. The original Hebrew does NOT say the Earth was created in six days Yes it does dunce. Otherwise all the animals and plants would have died in the millions of years of darkness. You once again show yourself to be a liar and and idiot. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-27   13:40:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#7) Ok. So what do you make of the dinosaurs? Do you think they co-existed with men and then died in the Flood, and the ones on the ark died out afterwards? Yes sir that is basically it. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-27   13:40:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: interpreter (#8) It is the translations of it into English that quite often introduce errors. So according the the dork who makes the same wrong predictions for 20 years in a row, otherwise known as an idiot of false prophet thinks God is stupid and didn't know what the future most spoken languange would be. Here watch this video and maybe you will stop being a stupid person. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=69942 A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-27   13:43:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Vicomte13 (#7) (Edited) 9 hr 50 min 662.4 miles Head toward Church St on Chambers St. Go for 272 ft. Then 0.05 miles Turn right onto Church St. Go for 230 ft. Then 0.04 miles Turn left onto Reade St. Go for 423 ft. Then 0.08 miles Continue on Reade St. Go for 115 ft. Then 0.02 miles Turn right onto Hudson St. Go for 0.5 mi. Then 0.5 miles Turn slightly right onto Holland Tunnel. Go for 0.9 mi. Then 0.9 miles Continue on Holland Tunnel. Go for 1.0 mi. Then 1.0 miles Continue on 14th St. Go for 0.3 mi. Then 0.3 miles Keep right onto I-78 W (New Jersey Tpke Ext) toward New Jersey Turnpike/I-78/I-95. Go for 8.3 mi. Then 8.3 miles Keep left onto I-78 W (I-78 Express Lane) toward Garden State Parkway/Clinton. Go for 58.9 mi. Then 58.9 miles Continue on I-78 W (Walter J Dealtrey Memorial Hwy). Go for 77.1 mi. Then 77.1 miles Take left exit 1B toward Harrisburg onto I-81 S (American Legion Memorial Hwy). Go for 37.3 mi. Then 37.3 miles Take exit 52 onto US-11 S (Harrisburg Pike). Go for 1.3 mi. Then 1.3 miles Take ramp onto I-76 W (Pennsylvania Tpke) toward Penna Turnpike/Pittsburgh. Go for 153 mi. Then 152.8 miles Take exit 75 onto I-70 W. Go for 40.3 mi. Then 40.3 miles Continue on I-70 W toward Wheeling. Go for 17.7 mi. Then 17.7 miles Continue on I-70 W. Go for 9.3 mi. Then 9.3 miles Take left exit 5A toward Columbus onto I-470 W. Go for 4.0 mi. Then 4.0 miles Continue on I-470 W. Go for 6.7 mi. Then 6.7 miles Take the left exit toward Columbus onto I-70 W. Go for 111 mi. Then 110.7 miles Take exit 108 onto I-270 S. Go for 12.3 mi. Then 12.3 miles Take exit 55A-B toward Cincinnati onto I-71 S. Go for 84.5 mi. Then 84.5 miles Take exit 17B toward I-75 onto I-275 W. Go for 23.8 mi. Then 23.8 miles Take exit 5 toward Kentucky onto I-275 S. Go for 8.0 mi. Then 8.0 miles Continue on I-275 S. Go for 3.3 mi. Then 3.3 miles Continue on I-275 E. Go for 2.0 mi. Then 2.0 miles Take exit 11 toward Petersburg onto KY-8 S/KY-3608 W. Go for 0.4 mi. Then 0.4 miles Continue on Idlewild by Pass (KY-8/KY-3608). Go for 82 ft. Then 0.02 miles Turn left onto Bullitsburg Church Rd. Go for 0.4 mi. Then 0.4 miles Turn left. Go for 98 ft. Then 0.02 miles Turn left. Go for 449 ft. Then 0.09 miles Turn slightly right. Go for 154 ft. Then 0.03 miles Creation Museum 2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd, Petersburg, KY 41080 A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-27   13:46:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: A K A Stone (#13) Directions from Ground Zero to the Creation Museum. Interesting. Ok. So we are to take Genesis absolutely literally. Is that also true of each other part of the Bible? For example, Jesus' words, are we to take them absolutely literally? Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-27   17:40:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Vicomte13 (#9) (Edited) All I know is, Genesis says the earth was created in six time periods. Actually the Hebrew word used is "yom" which in ancient Hebrew simply meant time period, which could mean anywhere from one 24-hour day to thousands or millions of years. In today's usage, it is usually taken to mean one 24-hour day but there is no way of knowing for certain what the author(s) of Genesis were thinking, but if God was directing their thoughts (as I believe) then yes, God definitely knew it was not a 24- hour day. And no, the time periods do not overlap. As for the fourth time period, that is not when the sun was created (it was created in Yom one), but it's when the four seasons that we have now were created. In other words, when the earth came be tilted as it is today, creating the 4 seasons. At the end of Yom 4, and beginning of Yom 5, as animals began to recognize the 4 seasons, the first (semi) intelligent animal appeared, a squirrel-monkey, that learned to store food for the winter, the beginning of intelligence. But in yom 5 there were also (dumb) dinosaurs around, so God caused a giant asteroid to strike the Earth, and at exactly the right time, in order to wipe out the undesired (giant reptile) species and allow the (smarter) mammals to survive and thrive. In every case, when there was a mass extinction on Earth (caused by God and Providence), a smarter species of animal (and plant) life appeared to replace the species that was wiped out. Because all of the mass extinctions occurred at exactly the right time to advance life on earth to the next stage, there is no way they could have happened entirely by chance. It is called the Intelligent Design theory (because you can't mention "God" in public schools) and it should be taught alongside Darwin's theory in all schools in order to give our young people a higher power to believe in, and save them and our nation from self-destruction. Barry, the interpreter PS, the old intelligent design theory was banned by the (atheist-led) US Supreme court because it was not "specific" enough. The intelligent design theory decribed above is my "specific" version as espoused in my book, "Genesis: Why We Are Here" interpreter  posted on  2024-01-27   23:44:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: interpreter (#15) All I know is, Genesis says the earth was created in six time periods. No it says days dumb ass liar. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-28   0:02:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: interpreter (#15) (Edited) That's certainly an interpretation, but there is a vice in the construction, in that Genesis says that in Yom 1 God created light, separating it from the darkness. In Yom 2 he created the dry land. In Yom 3 he created the plants and trees, and in Yom 4 he created the sun and moon. That is what the text says. So, when I asked if these times could be overlapping, I was expecting you to say yes, because then you would have the sun and the plants being created simultaneously, in different mentioned creation cycles. Supporting this is the verb tenses. There are only two in ancient Hebrew - the perfect, signifying something is completed ("God created"), and the imperfect, signifying something that is incomplete ("God began to create", or "God will create".). And in Genesis, all of the sequence of creation, each Yom, is described using imperfect verbs. God did not create light in Yom 1, or create plants in Yom 3, or create the Sun in Yom 4. He began to create each. All of these verbs are in the imperfect. Only in day 7 does it say that God completed the creation, but even then it doesn't use a completed perfect verb. Rather, it says "God began to complete...". That is why I thought you might say that the creation accounts of each yom overlap. You understand the Hebrew enough to see that a "Yom" is a time period, as in "in the days", not as in "Monday". Perhaps you have overlooked this verb tense issue, because your straight assertion that there is no overlap, and that the Sun was created on the first day, rather squarely contradicts what the text SAYS (according to you, which disregards the verb tenses). According to you, each Yom is Completed before the next Yom begins. The Hebrew verbs don't say that, but you do. Ok. Going with that, go consult Genesis again. It says that the plants were created on the third yom, t hundreds of millions of years. But it clearly says that the great light and the lesser light - sun and moon - that divide day and night - was created on the fourth day. Now, as I read it, with God beginning to create these things, per the Hebrew verb, with them all overlapping, this is fine. But as you read it, it appears to have real logical problems for me. Then I have the plants living for hundreds of millions of years, without the sun. You said the sun was created the first day, because "light" was created then, but the text SAYS that the sun and moon and stars were created on the fourth (actually it says they began to be created, but you don't currently recognize that). So, I'm asking you to reconsider what you think, based on this, and to look again at the text remembering the verb tense issues, and noting in particular the creation of the plants on the third yom, but the sun on the fourth. With those things considered, if you could answer, I would appreciate it. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-28   12:22:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: interpreter (#15) (Edited) It goes without saying that if God smashed the earth with a giant asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs, that death was very definitely "in the world" before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, even though this contradicts the actual text of Genesis and Paul's repeat of it, yes? Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-28   12:24:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Vicomte13, to all (#0) Here, there are several people who believe, ardently, in their heart of hearts, that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is perfect, and directly from God. Nothing in it is wrong, or can be. I believe that KJV was written to one protect KJ or the king from Christian theology. Catholic Bible is to protect Catholic hierarchy from Christian theology. In the end holy ghost/ spirit of the GOD's words should come through no matter what you read. Blindly following is not the same in my opinion as faith. Blindly following means you can never question the word and if you do this makes you a heretic. In faith the word of GOD should be able to stand up to any scientific study. This doesn't mean you have the ability at the time to know the answer and must be taken on "faith" at this time. It will be revealed in time to pass the scientific scrutiny as long as science has not been perverted by criminal minds. Just remember it takes as much faith to believe the world is 6 thousand years old as it takes to believe its 6 billion years old! I just did a drive by and may not even see who post after. ;) Btw im surprised my old handle still works!? I hope all are doing well. "Socialism corrupts and Democratic Socialism corrupts Absolutely"! Justified  posted on  2024-01-28   12:40:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Justified (#19) Yup, your handle still works. It takes a different kind of faith to think that the world is 6000 years old than to believe it is 4.5 billion years. To believe the latter, you have to accept that thousands of different scientific minds, working on separate issues over nearly 200 years, came to the conclusion about the age of things based on coincidence, or on groupthink. They do present the evidence for their beliefs - fossil records, actual measurement of continental drift today, etc. There are assumptions, true, and those assumptions might be wrong, but they are based on observed things. The faith that it takes to believe in that is that all those people really exist (you've never seen them), that the fossils they describe are real (you've never touched them), and the measurements of things are real and not just made up. So, you have to take on faith that all of these mountains of data that supposedly come from different people really exist and really did come from different people, and hasn't been spawned by a few people as a massive and sustained fraud. The faith that it takes to believe the world is 6000 years old is that an old book, written without observation of anything, by ancient people we don't know, accurately reflects a truth that they could not know or see, because a God told them that. The latter requires a literal leap of blind faith in the dark, and in the authority of a written text. The former requires a belief that the world is normal and as it appears to be, and is not a conspiracy driven by a cabal. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-28   19:19:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Vicomte13 (#14) I will buy you a ticket to the creation museum and buy you lunch also. I've never been there but plan on going sometime soon. I drove by the Ark they also have one day. A K A Stone  posted on  2024-01-28   19:37:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: Vicomte13 (#17) According to you, each Yom is Completed before the next Yom begins. The Hebrew verbs don't say that, but you do. Ok. Going with that, go consult Genesis again. It says that the plants were created on the third yom, t hundreds of millions of years. But it clearly says that the great light and the lesser light - sun and moon - that divide day and night - was created on the fourth day. Now, as I read it, with God beginning to create these things, per the Hebrew verb, with them all overlapping, this is fine. But as you read it, it appears to have real logical problems for me. Then I have the plants living for hundreds of millions of years, without the sun. You said the sun was created the first day, because "light" was created then, but the text SAYS that the sun and moon and stars were created on the fourth (actually it says they began to be created, but you don't currently recognize that). So, I'm asking you to reconsider what you think, based on this, and to look again at the text remembering the verb tense issues, and noting in particular the creation of the plants on the third yom, but the sun on the fourth. With those things considered, if you could answer, I would appreciate it. I wasn't ignoring your post, but trying to answer your post while watching the playoffs didn't work out and I lost everything I wrote. So I'll try again. The verb-tense thing you have brought up is interesting, and after reading Young's literal translation (again) I noticed the verb tense changes to past tense in Day 4 (or Yom 4) . Not sure what to make of that change in verb tenses, but is does kinda hint that the sun was created on Yom 1 and only the seasons (as we know them today) were created on Yom 4, which is what I've been thinking for years now because it fully agrees with the scientific facts. Anyhow, I want to move on to another theory -- the Dispensational theory. In the New Testament days, the Jew's wise men (or Magi) of the eastern hill country (the Qumran area) believed the creation story was actually six thousand-year periods in the creation of man. (Based on a couple verses that say "with God, 1 day = 1,000 years). And they taught that the Messiah would be born at the beginning of Day 4, the day of the sun. And the Qumran wise men (who watched the stars at night while tending their sheep) also taught that the beginning of Day 4 (and the birth of the Messiah) would be marked by a bright morning star (also known as the Star in the East). (The same bright morning star adorning the Israeli flag today) It so happens that a bright morning star appeared over Bethlehem (at high noon) precisely 4000 thousand years after the appearance of Adam, on March 27th, 4 BC. It can be seen with any star-tracking software set to that date. (I used Distant Suns, vers. 2). It was the first day of the Hebrew New Year. Exactly six months earlier, the same thing happened when John the Babtist was born, at the beginning of the sacred calendar, That's when the two morning stars sang together, as first prophesied in Job, the oldest writing there is, predating Genesis. Ironically, the Qumran community had a copy of Job, but did not possess a copy of the verse saying where the Messiah would be born (and had to ask Herod's wise men). We are now in the seventh millennium of man, which was marked by the Euphrates drying up, just as the Bible predicts. So the Dispensational view of the Genesis creation saga is definitely valid, and easily proven. For more on this, see my book, Genesis: Why We Are Here. interpreter  posted on  2024-01-29   3:07:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: A K A Stone (#21) Sounds interesting. Do you live close to NYC? I don't know when I will be able to go down there, but if you're closer we can get dinner sometime. Last time I remember I was supposed to meet you at the Churrascaria Plataforma, but my teenage daughter had a hissy fit and put me in an impossible situation - I was there and wanted to come in, but she was just going to run off and do God-knows-what if I did, so I couldn't. This time that won't happen. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-29   15:30:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: interpreter (#22) (Edited) Hmmm. Well, as I read those verbs, they remain in the imperfect form the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th day, always "he will say", "he will make". They're never the perfect "he made", "he said". So it seems to me that these things are all open-ended, and can be read as overlapping, which is how I read them. It makes sense to me that, overlapping, the first beginnings of the plants, and the animals, and the sun and moon, can be seen as happening at once, or in a sequence that is not meant to be an order as much as a labelling of different processes: energy, land and sea and sky, sun, moon and stars, plants, animals of different types. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-29   15:35:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Vicomte13 (#24) Hmmm. Well, as I read those verbs, they remain in the imperfect form the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th day, always "he will say", "he will make". They're never the perfect "he made", "he said". So it seems to me that these things are all open-ended, and can be read as overlapping, which is how I read them. Well, I know a little Hebrew, but when it comes to ancient Hebrew, just enough to be dangerous. So I rely on Young's YLT Bible. It has verses 14 & 15 in the perfect tense. In short, I believe the creation saga can be interpreted two ways, each being equally valid, but in both cases, Genesis is talking about time periods way longer than a 24-hour day. You have made we aware of the verb tenses which I will investigate further when I have the time. In answer to your previous post, I live in the Houston area, a long ways from New York City. But before I retired, my company sent me to that area every couple years or so, so I know my way around Manhattan, can't afford to live there though. But would love to meet you for dinner someday. interpreter  posted on  2024-01-29   20:06:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: interpreter (#25) Sounds great. Vicomte13  posted on  2024-01-30   8:52:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com