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

Terry W. Benton on "apparent age" doctrine. . .again!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24917 ... My comments: ... Jerry and Terry could do better to spell out their different doctrines about
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      See:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/24917
      >
      > From: Terry W. Benton
      > Website: http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com
      > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Friday, December 3, 2010
      > Time: 7:48 AM MT
      >
      > Subject: Todd and Jewish History
      >
      > (excerpts)
      >
      > (T)he purpose of the apparent age argument
      > is to show the truth.
      >
      > God made ADAM in mature form and the world
      > in mature form. He had the bone and body
      > structure of a full-grown man, not a one-day
      > old baby.
      >
      > The fruit was already on mature trees.
      >
      > The world was instantly made by the divine
      > creator.
      >
      > When you use natural assumptions to evaluate
      > the age of the earth, and you purposely ignore
      > the testimony of the Creator, then your
      > naturalistic conclusions will be wrong.
      >
      > Terry W. Benton
      > http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

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

      My comments:

      Terry W. Benton says:

      > It only "looks" old!

      Jerry W. McDonald:

      > It is old!

      Jerry and Terry could do better to spell out their different doctrines about that, but perhaps their implications are enough until such time as they might choose to explicitly reveal their difference of opinion on that.

      As to Terry's latesst representation of his "apparent age" doctrine, it further confirms that the following is a fair represenation of his fundamental position:

      > I, Terry W. Benton, have my interpretation
      > of the text regarding the real world and
      > that trumps any real world evidence to the
      > contrary; such contrary evidence simply
      > indicating that God can and did make stuff
      > "look" older than it is.

      Terry is conceding that the "empirical evidence", the evidence independent of the text and his interpretation thereof, shows stuff is older than a few thousand years.

      That explains why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretentions and legal challenges.

      Terry wrote:

      > (IF) you use natural assumptions to
      > evaluate the age of the earth, and
      > you purposely ignore the testimony
      > of the Creator, (THEN) your naturalistic
      > conclusions will be wrong.

      I like that format! :o)

      However, I do not think that premise is true.

      As noted above, that does go to explaining further why it is young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretentions and legal challenges.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.