07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarSorry old chap. I was waiting for someone with a brain to answer.
The arguments you try to make here are the arguments of a simpleton.
Are you actually being serious? If so, your point of view about the Bible is reflected in your argument. You view the Bible with no repect. You believe those who believe in the Bible are simpletons. Your argument either reflects you or your view of those who believe the Bible. I'll be generous and assume the latter.
Move along.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeMatt 24:37 Matthew 24:37King James Version (KJV)
🙂
In Matt 24:37 we have 'days' referring to an era - "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (While in Genesis 8:22 we have 'day' as the span of human history).
Isiah 9:4 of course uses 'day' to record a memorable event - "For as in the day of Midian’s defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens th ...[text shortened]... through on his intention ( Jer 31:35-37 ) '
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/day/
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
The days of Noah is speaking of all the days of Noah, the word day remains a day.
You'll have to find a verse where it doesn't mean that to have any hope of proving your
point.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou mean a brain more like yours.
Sorry old chap. I was waiting for someone with a brain to answer.
Move along.
I understand.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarWhat I'm trying to say is that in the environment immediately following creation (6 literal days) age was not a value considered, but rather everything was timelessly new and fresh and perfect with a simple yet profound description of "very good" given it all.
I asked physical age. Would he appear to be 3? Would he appear to be about 8?
I would guess somewhere between 16 and 30.
Originally posted by @josephwI suppose what you are saying is relevant to them, but I am discussing from our modern point of view.
What I'm trying to say is that in the environment immediately following creation (6 literal days) age was not a value considered, but rather everything was timelessly new and fresh and perfect with a simple yet profound description of "very good" given it all.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeOn the contrary, it is you that doesn't understand that the word day in the creation account is a literal day with a morning and an evening associated with it.
Indeed. People who take the 'days' of creation literally simply don't understand how 'day' is used elsewhere in the bible.
Whereas in Daniel the seventy weeks of years is interpreted by its context in that we are told exactly how long that is literally.
You're simply blowing smoke up your own without any real knowledge or understanding of the scriptures or even what you're talking about.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarI get that, but you're asking atheists and evolutionists that scoff at God's Word how old Adam appeared moments after God made him.
I suppose what you are saying is relevant to them, but I am discussing from our modern point of view.
Why ask them? They don't know!
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou don't even believe in creation yet you quote a view you're will to accept in as long as it contradicts the clear meaning of the genesis account of creation.
🙂
In Matt 24:37 we have 'days' referring to an era - "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (While in Genesis 8:22 we have 'day' as the span of human history).
Isiah 9:4 of course uses 'day' to record a memorable event - "For as in the day of Midian’s defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens th ...[text shortened]... through on his intention ( Jer 31:35-37 ) '
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/day/
That's intellectual muddling.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @josephwI ask because their point of view is like yours, when God created everything, everything is fresh and starts aging from there.
I get that, but you're asking atheists and evolutionists that scoff at God's Word how old Adam appeared moments after God made him.
Why ask them? They don't know!
I believe this is a faulty assumption.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @josephwCough cough metaphor.
On the contrary, it is you that doesn't understand that the word day in the creation account is a literal day with a morning and an evening associated with it.
Whereas in Daniel the seventy weeks of years is interpreted by its context in that we are told exactly how long that is literally.
You're simply blowing smoke up your own without any real knowledge or understanding of the scriptures or even what you're talking about.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarThis is the best you can do? Unfounded insults?
The arguments you try to make here are the arguments of a simpleton.
Are you actually being serious? If so, your point of view about the Bible is reflected in your argument. You view the Bible with no repect. You believe those who believe in the Bible are simpletons. Your argument either reflects you or your view of those who believe the Bible. I'll be generous and assume the latter.
Weak sauce.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @josephwThe OP asked us to assume the creation account is true. Then you come to bash the people willing to play ball?
You don't even believe in creation yet you quote a view you're will to accept in as long as it contradicts the clear meaning of the genesis account of creation.
That's intellectual muddling.
Ever heard of arguing from hypothesis? You can follow premises to a conclusion even if you don't agree with the premises.
This is basic stuff in logical argumentation.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemReally? You have answered my question about Adam?
The OP asked us to assume the creation account is true. Then you come to bash the people willing to play ball?
Ever heard of arguing from hypothesis? You can follow premises to a conclusion even if you don't agree with the premises.
This is basic stuff in logical argumentation.