Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [M & B] AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

Expand Messages
  • Jerry McDonald
    Well, if that is your inference, then maybe there is good reason for it!  Brother Lyons did not say anything about if creation was more than 6000 years old
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, if that is your inference, then maybe there is good reason for it!  Brother Lyons did not say anything about if creation was more than 6000 years old then God does not exist.  All he said was that the Bible clearly states that it was done in six days, and if that is what it says, then what is wrong with interpreting it that way.
      jdm




      ________________________________
      From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com; coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 3:32:10 PM
      Subject: [M & B] AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

       
      (Yep, it sounds like Apologetics Press is again promoting the idea that if anything is more than a few thousand years old, then the God of the Bible does not exist. See what you think!-RLBaty)

      ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------

      http://www.apologet icspress. org/articles/ 1792

      “God isn't Bound by Time!”
      by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

      Although for millennia Genesis chapter one had been understood as the original creation of the Universe that took place in six literal, majestic days, within the last two centuries many have been duped into believing that the billions of years required for evolution must fit somewhere within the first chapter of the English Bible.

      For numerous “Bible believers,” evolutionary dating methods have become the father of biblical interpretation.

      Therefore, we are told that God spent, not six literal days, but billions of years creating the Universe and everything in it.

      We frequently hear such statements as:

      > (1) "God is not bound by time";

      > (2) "God could have taken as much
      > time as he wanted while creating
      > the Universe and everything in it"; and

      > (3) "Billions of years could have
      > elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3."

      To say that Creation did not last millions or billions of years, supposedly, is to limit Almighty God.

      There is no question that God is not bound by time. He is the infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator.

      The point, however, is not whether God is outside of time (cf. Psalm 90:2), but what God has revealed to us—both in Genesis 1 and in the rest of the Bible.

      God could have created the Universe in any way He so desired; in whatever order He wanted, and in whatever time frame He so chose.

      He could have created the world and everything in it in

      > six hours,
      > six minutes,
      > six seconds, or
      > in one milliseconds

      He is, after all, God Almighty (Genesis 17:1).

      But the question is not what God could have done; it is what He said He did.

      And He said that He created everything in six literal days.

      When God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments, He stated:

      > Remember the Sabbath day, to keep
      > it holy. Six days you shall labor and
      > do all your work, but the seventh day
      > is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.
      > In it you shall do no work: you, nor
      > your son, nor your daughter, nor your
      > male servant, nor your female servant,
      > nor your cattle, nor your stranger who
      > is within your gates. For in six days the
      > Lord made the heavens and the earth,
      > the sea, and all that is in them, and
      > rested the seventh day. Therefore the
      > Lord blessed the Sabbath day and
      > hallowed it
      >> (Exodus 20:8-11, emp. added).

      This Sabbath command can be understood properly only when the days of the week are considered regular 24-hour days.

      Based upon God’s use of words throughout Scripture which represent time periods that are much longer than a regular day (cf. Genesis 1:14; 2 Peter 3:8), we can rightly conclude that God could have revealed to man that this world was created over a vast period of time.

      [He could have used the Hebrew word dôr, which means long periods of time.]

      The fact is, however, God said He created this world and everything in it in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; cf. Psalm 33:9; 148:5; Mark 10:6).

      Question: What’s wrong with the way God said He did it?

      ------------ --------- ------

      Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

      We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed:

      (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher;
      (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted;
      (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials;
      (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article;
      (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original);
      (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time;
      (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and
      (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

      For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

      Apologetics Press
      230 Landmark Drive
      Montgomery, Alabama 36117
      U.S.A.
      Phone (334) 272-8558
      http://www.apologet icspress. org

      ------------ --------- --------- --------- -----
      ------------ --------- --------- --------- -----

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      Welcome back Jerry! Is your move complete? ... Didn t he? You might consider a closer reading of the article. ... That takes us back to the old, outstanding
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Welcome back Jerry!

        Is your move complete?

        You wrote, regarding the AP article and in response to my opinion about it:

        > ...Lyons did not say anything about
        > if creation was more than 6000 years
        > old then God does not exist.

        Didn't he? You might consider a closer reading of the article.

        You went on to write:

        > (H)e said...that the Bible clearly states
        > that it was done in six days, and if that
        > is what it says, then what is wrong with
        > interpreting it that way.

        That takes us back to the old, outstanding question(s).

        Of course, I think that folks need to realize that the ungetoverable, unstated position of Apologetics Press is that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" and that whenever they discuss the "six days" without specifically mentioning that context it should be understood by the readers that that is the context in which AP is offering up its discussion of the issue.

        So, whenever AP talks about those "six days" it should be understood as being "six days no more than a few thousand years ago".

        Jerry, you ask, in that context:

        > (W)hat is wrong with
        > interpreting it that way?

        That's certainly a good question and I've got a simple answer.

        It could be wrong!

        Jerry, would you agree that the interpretation could be wrong?

        Is there more than one way to determine if the interpretation is wrong?

        Jerry, would you agree that one way of determining if the interpretation of a text is wrong is to consider the real world evidence, independent of the text, regarding the age of stuff?

        Jerry, if some thing(s) really are more than a few thousand years old, would you agree that the interpretation of the text otherwise (e.g., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is wrong; regardless of whether or not anyone knows the correct interpretation?

        Alternatively, if the text really teaches that nothing is more than a few thousand years old, and some thing(s) really are more than a few thousand years old, what does that prospect say about God and the text?

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ---------------Jerry's Message--------------

        From: Jerry McDonald
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 10:40 AM

        Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

        Well, if that is your inference, then maybe there is good reason for it!

        Brother Lyons did not say anything about if creation was more than 6000 years old then God does not exist.

        All he said was that the Bible clearly states that it was done in six days, and if that is what it says, then what is wrong with interpreting it that way.

        jdm

        -------------Robert's Message-------------

        From: Robert Baty
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com; coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 3:32:10 PM

        Subject: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

        (Yep, it sounds like Apologetics Press is again promoting the idea that if anything is more than a few thousand years old, then the God of the Bible does not exist. See what you think!-RLBaty)

        http://www.apologet icspress. org/articles/ 1792

        “God isn't Bound by Time!”
        by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

        Although for millennia Genesis chapter one had been understood as the original creation of the Universe that took place in six literal, majestic days, within the last two centuries many have been duped into believing that the billions of years required for evolution must fit somewhere within the first chapter of the English Bible.

        For numerous “Bible believers,” evolutionary dating methods have become the father of biblical interpretation.

        Therefore, we are told that God spent, not six literal days, but billions of years creating the Universe and everything in it.

        We frequently hear such statements as:

        > (1) "God is not bound by time";

        > (2) "God could have taken as much
        > time as he wanted while creating
        > the Universe and everything in it"; and

        > (3) "Billions of years could have
        > elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3."

        To say that Creation did not last millions or billions of years, supposedly, is to limit Almighty God.

        There is no question that God is not bound by time. He is the infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator.

        The point, however, is not whether God is outside of time (cf. Psalm 90:2), but what God has revealed to us—both in Genesis 1 and in the rest of the Bible.

        God could have created the Universe in any way He so desired; in whatever order He wanted, and in whatever time frame He so chose.

        He could have created the world and everything in it in

        > six hours,
        > six minutes,
        > six seconds, or
        > in one milliseconds

        He is, after all, God Almighty (Genesis 17:1).

        But the question is not what God could have done; it is what He said He did.

        And He said that He created everything in six literal days.

        When God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments, He stated:

        > Remember the Sabbath day, to keep
        > it holy. Six days you shall labor and
        > do all your work, but the seventh day
        > is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.
        > In it you shall do no work: you, nor
        > your son, nor your daughter, nor your
        > male servant, nor your female servant,
        > nor your cattle, nor your stranger who
        > is within your gates. For in six days the
        > Lord made the heavens and the earth,
        > the sea, and all that is in them, and
        > rested the seventh day. Therefore the
        > Lord blessed the Sabbath day and
        > hallowed it
        >> (Exodus 20:8-11, emp. added).

        This Sabbath command can be understood properly only when the days of the week are considered regular 24-hour days.

        Based upon God’s use of words throughout Scripture which represent time periods that are much longer than a regular day (cf. Genesis 1:14; 2 Peter 3:8), we can rightly conclude that God could have revealed to man that this world was created over a vast period of time.

        [He could have used the Hebrew word dôr, which means long periods of time.]

        The fact is, however, God said He created this world and everything in it in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; cf. Psalm 33:9; 148:5; Mark 10:6).

        Question: What’s wrong with the way God said He did it?

        Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

        We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed:

        (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher;
        (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted;
        (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials;
        (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article;
        (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original);
        (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time;
        (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and
        (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

        For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

        Apologetics Press
        230 Landmark Drive
        Montgomery, Alabama 36117
        U.S.A.
        Phone (334) 272-8558
        http://www.apologet icspress. org

        ---------------------------------------------
        ---------------------------------------------




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jerry McDonald
        ________________________________ From: Robert Baty To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com; coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          ________________________________
          From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com; coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 12:22:56 PM
          Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

           
          Welcome back Jerry!

          Is your move complete?

          You wrote, regarding the AP article and in response to my opinion about it:

          > ...Lyons did not say anything about
          > if creation was more than 6000 years
          > old then God does not exist.

          Didn't he? You might consider a closer reading of the article.

          You went on to write:

          > (H)e said...that the Bible clearly states
          > that it was done in six days, and if that
          > is what it says, then what is wrong with
          > interpreting it that way.

          That takes us back to the old, outstanding question(s).

          Of course, I think that folks need to realize that the ungetoverable, unstated position of Apologetics Press is that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" and that whenever they discuss the "six days" without specifically mentioning that context it should be understood by the readers that that is the context in which AP is offering up its discussion of the issue.

          So, whenever AP talks about those "six days" it should be understood as being "six days no more than a few thousand years ago".

          Jerry, you ask, in that context:

          > (W)hat is wrong with
          > interpreting it that way?

          That's certainly a good question and I've got a simple answer.

          It could be wrong!

          Jerry, would you agree that the interpretation could be wrong?

          JM
          Well I guess just about anything is possible, but it aint. :)
          RB
          Is there more than one way to determine if the interpretation is wrong?

          Jerry, would you agree that one way of determining if the interpretation of a text is wrong is to consider the real world evidence, independent of the text, regarding the age of stuff?
          JM
          Certainly.
          RB
          Jerry, if some thing(s) really are more than a few thousand years old, would you agree that the interpretation of the text otherwise (e.g., "nothing is more than a few thousand years old") is wrong; regardless of whether or not anyone knows the correct interpretation?
          JM
          No, Robert, when the Bible is so clear on the matter as it is on this issue, there really is no other way of interpreting it.  Todd will tell you that.  Even he understands that if the Biblical account of six 24 hour days, a few thousand years ago is errant, then the Bible is wrong.  You can add and subtract all you want, but you won't make the text say anything other than what it says.  Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptism is for the remission of sins.  There simply is no other way to interpret that.  You can add to it, you can take away from it, but you cannot squeeze a different interpretation on it--not legitimately anyway.
          RB

          Alternatively, if the text really teaches that nothing is more than a few thousand years old, and some thing(s) really are more than a few thousand years old, what does that prospect say about God and the text?
           
          JM
          1 It would either show that the data of real world evidence was in error, or
          2. it would show that the text was in error.
          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          jdm
          ------------ ---Jerry' s Message----- ---------

          From: Jerry McDonald
          To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
          Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 10:40 AM

          Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

          Well, if that is your inference, then maybe there is good reason for it!

          Brother Lyons did not say anything about if creation was more than 6000 years old then God does not exist.

          All he said was that the Bible clearly states that it was done in six days, and if that is what it says, then what is wrong with interpreting it that way.

          jdm

          ------------ -Robert's Message----- --------

          From: Robert Baty
          To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com; coCBanned@yahoogrou ps.com
          Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 3:32:10 PM

          Subject: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

          (Yep, it sounds like Apologetics Press is again promoting the idea that if anything is more than a few thousand years old, then the God of the Bible does not exist. See what you think!-RLBaty)

          http://www.apologet icspress. org/articles/ 1792

          “God isn't Bound by Time!”
          by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

          Although for millennia Genesis chapter one had been understood as the original creation of the Universe that took place in six literal, majestic days, within the last two centuries many have been duped into believing that the billions of years required for evolution must fit somewhere within the first chapter of the English Bible.

          For numerous “Bible believers,” evolutionary dating methods have become the father of biblical interpretation.

          Therefore, we are told that God spent, not six literal days, but billions of years creating the Universe and everything in it.

          We frequently hear such statements as:

          > (1) "God is not bound by time";

          > (2) "God could have taken as much
          > time as he wanted while creating
          > the Universe and everything in it"; and

          > (3) "Billions of years could have
          > elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3."

          To say that Creation did not last millions or billions of years, supposedly, is to limit Almighty God.

          There is no question that God is not bound by time. He is the infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator.

          The point, however, is not whether God is outside of time (cf. Psalm 90:2), but what God has revealed to us—both in Genesis 1 and in the rest of the Bible.

          God could have created the Universe in any way He so desired; in whatever order He wanted, and in whatever time frame He so chose.

          He could have created the world and everything in it in

          > six hours,
          > six minutes,
          > six seconds, or
          > in one milliseconds

          He is, after all, God Almighty (Genesis 17:1).

          But the question is not what God could have done; it is what He said He did.

          And He said that He created everything in six literal days.

          When God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments, He stated:

          > Remember the Sabbath day, to keep
          > it holy. Six days you shall labor and
          > do all your work, but the seventh day
          > is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.
          > In it you shall do no work: you, nor
          > your son, nor your daughter, nor your
          > male servant, nor your female servant,
          > nor your cattle, nor your stranger who
          > is within your gates. For in six days the
          > Lord made the heavens and the earth,
          > the sea, and all that is in them, and
          > rested the seventh day. Therefore the
          > Lord blessed the Sabbath day and
          > hallowed it
          >> (Exodus 20:8-11, emp. added).

          This Sabbath command can be understood properly only when the days of the week are considered regular 24-hour days.

          Based upon God’s use of words throughout Scripture which represent time periods that are much longer than a regular day (cf. Genesis 1:14; 2 Peter 3:8), we can rightly conclude that God could have revealed to man that this world was created over a vast period of time.

          [He could have used the Hebrew word dôr, which means long periods of time.]

          The fact is, however, God said He created this world and everything in it in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; cf. Psalm 33:9; 148:5; Mark 10:6).

          Question: What’s wrong with the way God said He did it?

          Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

          We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed:

          (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher;
          (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted;
          (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials;
          (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article;
          (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original);
          (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time;
          (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and
          (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

          For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

          Apologetics Press
          230 Landmark Drive
          Montgomery, Alabama 36117
          U.S.A.
          Phone (334) 272-8558
          http://www.apologet icspress. org

          ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------
          ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Robert Baty
          Jerry, In summary, you have again indicated that your position is that there is no legitimate dispute over the issue of what the Bible teaches about the age of
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Jerry,

            In summary, you have again indicated that your position is that there is no legitimate dispute over the issue of what the Bible teaches about the age of stuff. That is, that it teaches that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

            As a result, it is your position that if something is more than a few thousand years old, the Bible is wrong.

            As I indicated earlier, and as indicated in the subject header of this thread, that appears to be the AP position; one implication of which is atheism inasmuch as it is argued that the God of the Bible cannot exist if his word, the Bible, is errant.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            ----------------Jerry's Message--------------

            From: Jerry McDonald
            To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 2:08 PM

            Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

            (excerpts)
            
            > Jerry, would you agree that the
            > interpretation could be wrong?

            JM

            Well I guess just about anything is possible, but it aint. :)

            RB

            > Is there more than one way to
            > determine if the interpretation
            > is wrong?

            > Jerry, would you agree that one way
            > of determining if the interpretation
            > of a text is wrong is to consider the
            > real world evidence, independent of
            > the text, regarding the age of stuff?

            JM

            Certainly.

            RB

            > Jerry, if some thing(s) really are
            > more than a few thousand years
            > old, would you agree that the
            > interpretation of the text otherwise
            > (e.g., "nothing is more than a few
            > thousand years old") is wrong;
            > regardless of whether or not anyone
            > knows the correct interpretation?

            JM

            No, Robert, when the Bible is so clear on the matter as it is on this issue, there really is no other way of interpreting it.

            Todd will tell you that.

            Even he understands that if the Biblical account of six 24 hour days, a few thousand years ago is errant, then the Bible is wrong.

            You can add and subtract all you want, but you won't make the text say anything other than what it says. Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptism is for the remission of sins. There simply is no other way to interpret that. You can add to it, you can take away from it, but you cannot squeeze a different interpretation on it--not legitimately anyway.

            RB

            > Alternatively, if the text really teaches
            > that nothing is more than a few
            > thousand years old, and some thing(s)
            > really are more than a few thousand
            > years old, what does that prospect say
            > about God and the text?

            JM

            1 It would either show that the data of real world evidence was in error, or

            2. it would show that the text was in error.

            jdm

            -----------------------------------------
            -----------------------------------------




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jerry McDonald
            While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.  General
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.  General revelation reveals a creator, special revelation reveals who he is.  All I am saying is that the Bible could be wrong and God still exist.  I do not believe that the Bible is wrong, I am just saying that your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
              jdm




              ________________________________
              From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 3:24:19 PM
              Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

               
              Jerry,

              In summary, you have again indicated that your position is that there is no legitimate dispute over the issue of what the Bible teaches about the age of stuff. That is, that it teaches that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

              As a result, it is your position that if something is more than a few thousand years old, the Bible is wrong.

              As I indicated earlier, and as indicated in the subject header of this thread, that appears to be the AP position; one implication of which is atheism inasmuch as it is argued that the God of the Bible cannot exist if his word, the Bible, is errant.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              ------------ ----Jerry' s Message----- ---------

              From: Jerry McDonald
              To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
              Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 2:08 PM

              Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

              (excerpts)
              
              > Jerry, would you agree that the
              > interpretation could be wrong?

              JM

              Well I guess just about anything is possible, but it aint. :)

              RB

              > Is there more than one way to
              > determine if the interpretation
              > is wrong?

              > Jerry, would you agree that one way
              > of determining if the interpretation
              > of a text is wrong is to consider the
              > real world evidence, independent of
              > the text, regarding the age of stuff?

              JM

              Certainly.

              RB

              > Jerry, if some thing(s) really are
              > more than a few thousand years
              > old, would you agree that the
              > interpretation of the text otherwise
              > (e.g., "nothing is more than a few
              > thousand years old") is wrong;
              > regardless of whether or not anyone
              > knows the correct interpretation?

              JM

              No, Robert, when the Bible is so clear on the matter as it is on this issue, there really is no other way of interpreting it.

              Todd will tell you that.

              Even he understands that if the Biblical account of six 24 hour days, a few thousand years ago is errant, then the Bible is wrong.

              You can add and subtract all you want, but you won't make the text say anything other than what it says. Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptism is for the remission of sins. There simply is no other way to interpret that. You can add to it, you can take away from it, but you cannot squeeze a different interpretation on it--not legitimately anyway.

              RB

              > Alternatively, if the text really teaches
              > that nothing is more than a few
              > thousand years old, and some thing(s)
              > really are more than a few thousand
              > years old, what does that prospect say
              > about God and the text?

              JM

              1 It would either show that the data of real world evidence was in error, or

              2. it would show that the text was in error.

              jdm

              ------------ --------- --------- --------- --
              ------------ --------- --------- --------- --

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Robert Baty
              Jerry, ... It wasn t my conclusion, but the conclusion you and others seem to, or did, propose, and the conclusion (e.g., atheism) does logically follow from
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 1, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Jerry,

                In conclusion, you wrote:

                > I do not believe that the Bible is
                > wrong, I am just saying that your
                > conclusion does not logically follow
                > from the premise.

                It wasn't my conclusion, but the conclusion you and others seem to, or did, propose, and the conclusion (e.g., atheism) does logically follow from the premise(s).

                That is, if God is perfect in all his attributes and sends us a message that is errant, then there is a logical contradiction that negates the existence of such a God; hence the "atheism" as to the inerrant God.

                I have not proposed that such a conclusion would logically follow as to the existence of errant gods. Being wrong would certainly be consistent with their supposed errant character.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                ---------------Jerry's Message---------------

                From: Jerry McDonald
                To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:58 PM

                Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

                While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.

                General revelation reveals a creator, special revelation reveals who he is.

                All I am saying is that the Bible could be wrong and God still exist.

                I do not believe that the Bible is wrong, I am just saying that your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

                jdm

                ---------------------------------------------
                ---------------------------------------------





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jerry McDonald
                Robert, I didn t say anything about errant gods.   I said that the Bible being wrong would not necessarily disprove the existence of God, it would only prove
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Robert, I didn't say anything about "errant gods."  I said that the Bible being wrong would not necessarily disprove the existence of God, it would only prove that the source that we thought we had of special revelation from God was not such.  This does not mean that God would be errant.  Don't tell me that we are going to have to get into all this logical fallacy stuff again.
                  jdm




                  ________________________________
                  From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
                  To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 9:31:05 PM
                  Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

                   
                  Jerry,

                  In conclusion, you wrote:

                  > I do not believe that the Bible is
                  > wrong, I am just saying that your
                  > conclusion does not logically follow
                  > from the premise.

                  It wasn't my conclusion, but the conclusion you and others seem to, or did, propose, and the conclusion (e.g., atheism) does logically follow from the premise(s).

                  That is, if God is perfect in all his attributes and sends us a message that is errant, then there is a logical contradiction that negates the existence of such a God; hence the "atheism" as to the inerrant God.

                  I have not proposed that such a conclusion would logically follow as to the existence of errant gods. Being wrong would certainly be consistent with their supposed errant character.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  ------------ ---Jerry' s Message----- --------- -

                  From: Jerry McDonald
                  To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
                  Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:58 PM

                  Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

                  While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.

                  General revelation reveals a creator, special revelation reveals who he is.

                  All I am saying is that the Bible could be wrong and God still exist.

                  I do not believe that the Bible is wrong, I am just saying that your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

                  jdm

                  ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------
                  ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Jerry McDonald
                  My point is, and always has been, that if God did not create the universe in six literal days a few thousand years ago, then the Bible is wrong.  It is wrong
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 2, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    My point is, and always has been, that if God did not create the universe in six literal days a few thousand years ago, then the Bible is wrong.  It is wrong because it is so clearly written that one would have to have help in misunderstanding it.  It is as clear as it is on Acts 2:38.  What would you say that to the Baptist who asked "what if Baptism wasn't for remission of sins?"  Would you say that your interpretation was wrong?  No!  It is clearly written, there is no misunderstanding it.  This is all I am saying.  I do not believe that the Bible is wrong.  I believe that the Bible and science backs up the argument that the universe (and all that it contains) was made in six literal 24 hour days not more than 10,000 years ago.

                    It is an either or situation.  Either it is right, or it is wrong.  You can't twist and turn scripture just anytime you wish to make it fit your desired beliefs.
                    jdm




                    ________________________________
                    From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
                    To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 12:32:48 PM
                    Subject: Re: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

                     
                    Robert, I didn't say anything about "errant gods."  I said that the Bible being wrong would not necessarily disprove the existence of God, it would only prove that the source that we thought we had of special revelation from God was not such.  This does not mean that God would be errant.  Don't tell me that we are going to have to get into all this logical fallacy stuff again.
                    jdm

                    ____________ _________ _________ __
                    From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@webtv. net>
                    To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
                    Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 9:31:05 PM
                    Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

                     
                    Jerry,

                    In conclusion, you wrote:

                    > I do not believe that the Bible is
                    > wrong, I am just saying that your
                    > conclusion does not logically follow
                    > from the premise.

                    It wasn't my conclusion, but the conclusion you and others seem to, or did, propose, and the conclusion (e.g., atheism) does logically follow from the premise(s).

                    That is, if God is perfect in all his attributes and sends us a message that is errant, then there is a logical contradiction that negates the existence of such a God; hence the "atheism" as to the inerrant God.

                    I have not proposed that such a conclusion would logically follow as to the existence of errant gods. Being wrong would certainly be consistent with their supposed errant character.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty

                    ------------ ---Jerry' s Message----- --------- -

                    From: Jerry McDonald
                    To: Maury_and_Baty@ yahoogroups. com
                    Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:58 PM

                    Subject: Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

                    While I understand your point, as far as God who is referred to in the Bible, if the Bible was errant, there could still be the existence of God.

                    General revelation reveals a creator, special revelation reveals who he is.

                    All I am saying is that the Bible could be wrong and God still exist.

                    I do not believe that the Bible is wrong, I am just saying that your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

                    jdm

                    ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------
                    ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Robert Baty
                    Jerry, ... Perhaps I ll have more to say about that later. ... Sincerely, Robert Baty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 2, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jerry,

                      In order to clarify your position, you state:

                      > My point is, and always has been,
                      > that if God did not create the
                      > universe in six literal days a few
                      > thousand years ago, then the Bible
                      > is wrong.

                      Perhaps I'll have more to say about that later.

                      For now, consider the followup hypothetical:

                      > If the Bible is wrong,
                      > then...???

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jerry McDonald
                      If the Bible is wrong, then we have no special revelation from God. jdm ________________________________ From: Robert Baty To:
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 2, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        If the Bible is wrong, then we have no special revelation from God.
                        jdm




                        ________________________________
                        From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
                        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 12:43:57 PM
                        Subject: [M & B] Re: AP this week: 6,000 years or so - or atheism???

                         
                        Jerry,

                        In order to clarify your position, you state:

                        > My point is, and always has been,
                        > that if God did not create the
                        > universe in six literal days a few
                        > thousand years ago, then the Bible
                        > is wrong.

                        Perhaps I'll have more to say about that later.

                        For now, consider the followup hypothetical:

                        > If the Bible is wrong,
                        > then...???

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.