somethingdifferent
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 387 |
| Registered on: | 8/18/2024 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/10/25 at 8:39 pm
quote:There are points you won't discuss
I'm not going to continue this discussion with you
quote:I understand everything you have said because I understand YEC having studied it for years. I can repeat the YEC position verbatim. I know the flood geology observations. I know it's strengths and weaknesses
You are seemingly incapable of understanding basic points
quote:Grammar is not a factor in this equation. It's amazing you can't understand that. Both YEC and OEC are valid interpretations of the text. The more you keep repeating this, the more it's clear you are emotionally unable to take a bibically sound position
refuse to see the necessity of grammar in biblical understanding
quote::lol: Does that include all the strawman mischaracterizations you keep debating? Does that include you not being able to prove what the authors/audience understood? Does that include you misunderstanding the purpose of the story (the hermeneutics you keep referring to) in order to cling to an emotional committment to YEC?
no matter how technical I get
quote:I never said that.
an adherence to OEC
quote:No you aren't. You are attempting to be a mind reader, you are ignoring the meaning of yom. You are being selective about representative passages. You are being selective about parallel usages. That is NOT "faithful" and is emotional, not intellectual
I'm attempting to be faithful to the text of Scripture
quote:No you did not. You admitted you won't respond to the praxis rebuttal which pulls the rug out from underneath your protestations. Here are the rest again, summarized. You talked around the previous points that I repeated
I already addressed these
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week is typology or that Adam being created at the "beginning" doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour "day"
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language
Your position can be summed up in 2 basic assertions
1. YEC is historical narrative and is biblical. People of biblical times would have understood the creation account this way. Thus, it is the factual, default position.
2. OEC is metaphorical which is dangerous and only came about later to appease extrabiblical discoveries.
Both of these assertions are false. If you can dislodge those mistaken ideas from your brain, you will begin to have a more biblically sound position. Until then, your position is basically moderately-well informed, unecessarily dogmatic sunday school coffee talk.
Your characterization isn't scholarly, it's not biblically sound and it may not even be historically correct. THOSE are facts
You keep presenting your OPINION as fact. Your case is NOT built on fact. It is built on opinion. A valid opinion, but just an opinion
There's something else you won't acknowledge. I have never said YEC is wrong or false or invalid. I am not disagreeing with you on that point. But I can also acknowledge that OEC does have validity too but you can't because of your emotional committment
1
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/9/25 at 6:49 pm
Here are the points you continue to not address. I suspect it's because you know they sink your ship
4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range is similar to other metaphorical passages (hyperbolic numbers, eschatology, wisdom literature) then you are either ignorant or being obstinate in order to avoid being pinned down on the interpretation of creation.
5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.
6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.
7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.
8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.
9. I get that you are averse to using something outside scripture to interpret scripture. The account can have metaphorical language. Since that's the case, there is absolutely no reason why we can't supplement the interpretation of special revelation with general revelation and that absolutely would not be a case of "throwing out the biblical rules of interpretation." You are operating from the presumption that yom means 24 hour period and anything else is later and contrived. There is no reason to start from that presumption. Given that's the case, OEC can be just as literal as YEC. If OEC refers to ages and that's actually the case, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
Here's the state of your position:
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week could be typology
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language
9. You can't prove that other instances of yom are necessarily definitive for the creation account
4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range is similar to other metaphorical passages (hyperbolic numbers, eschatology, wisdom literature) then you are either ignorant or being obstinate in order to avoid being pinned down on the interpretation of creation.
5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.
6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.
7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.
8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.
9. I get that you are averse to using something outside scripture to interpret scripture. The account can have metaphorical language. Since that's the case, there is absolutely no reason why we can't supplement the interpretation of special revelation with general revelation and that absolutely would not be a case of "throwing out the biblical rules of interpretation." You are operating from the presumption that yom means 24 hour period and anything else is later and contrived. There is no reason to start from that presumption. Given that's the case, OEC can be just as literal as YEC. If OEC refers to ages and that's actually the case, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
Here's the state of your position:
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week could be typology
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language
9. You can't prove that other instances of yom are necessarily definitive for the creation account
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/9/25 at 6:48 pm
quote:But they are crucial to your rejection of the alternatives.
I'm not going to respond again to your comments about Billy Graham or the necessity of YEC for salvation
P1. YEC is the biblical, historical, default position.
P2. OEC is metaphorical and dangerous
C. People will be led astray into biblical heresy
I hope you can see that the conclusion is dependent on the 2 premises. If you are denying the 2 premises, then what are you even objecting to? It would be a tacit admission that your rejection of alternatives to YEC is unfounded and that alternatives are just as viable as YEC.
quote:You absolutely have not and that's why I keep repeating them. In fact, you agree that you aren't responding in the previous comment
I've responded to every single point you've made
quote:I'M the one who has been reminding YOU of what the text says. YOU are denying what the text says and what it means
you want to focus the discussion instead of what the text says
quote:YEC is an alternative. It is not the default position and it might not even be historically accurate
I'm making logical conclusions based on the arguments you are providing
quote:Foo, THIS IS A STRAWMAN argument. At no point did I say anything like this. You are tilting at windmills
if you take the approach that the text should be interpreted by nature rather than the other way around
quote:And you have been corrected on this mistaken notion. OEC is no less "biblical" than YEC. Not one iota. YEC is NOT the default position. You are intrasigent which is not Christlike
I'm criticizing your view because it cannot be defended from the text by itself
quote::lol: Says the person who is shoehorning length of yom into the theological/hermeneutical meaning of the text. Why can't you understand that? The length of yom has NO BEARING on the intent of the story. None whatsoever. The meaning wouldn't be changed either way
your view destroys biblical hermeneutics
quote:Another strawman
it denies that words have specific meanings based on context
quote:Which is not a problem at all.
Your view requires a wholly unique usage of the word yom in Genesis 1 that doesn't occur anywhere else in the BIble
quote:Not apparent TO YOU
introduces a unique word usage for no apparent reason
quote:OEC is every bit as biblically sound as YEC. You're just being stubborn. You can't deny that yom can mean age. You can't deny that evening and morning can be metaphorical. You can't deny that the creation narrative can be unique in it's combination of these words. Those are facts
you just keep repeating unfounded possibilities for your position
quote:Incorrect. You are commiting eisegesis by insisting on 24 hour period in the account even though biblical people did not think yom meant that in every case.
I have supported my position by going through the text and exegeting it
quote:"normal"
demonstrating what they mean in normal usage
quote:Factually incorrect. That is your OPINION
their meanings are derived from and constrained by the text, itself
quote:Which could be typology - FACT
Moses uses the creation week as a basis for the Sabbath (4th commandment), how Jesus both upheld the 4th commandment
quote:This is not in contradiction to OEC
taught that Genesis is a factual and historic account
quote:This is not in contradiction to OEC
Paul referred back to creation in Genesis as historical in terms of the creation of Adam and his fall into sin
quote:Just done, yet again
You have not responded to these points with a counter and rebuttal
quote:Those are rebuttals. They are just as valid as YEC
You continue to merely talk about semantic range and the possibility of an OEC interpretation from that range
quote:It CAN. You can't deny that.
you haven't demonstrated that the word yom has a unique meaning or usage in Genesis 1
quote:I told you that it's a fact that biblical people knew yom did not mean 24 hour period in every instance
You haven't gone through the text at all and defended your position
quote:Grammar is not an issue here. The OEC interpretation is not invalidated by the "grammar" because we know the meanings of the words. OEC is possible just like YEC is possible. If morning and evening are metaphorical, then yom being age is not affected by the grammar.
You haven't explained why, grammatically, but you have just asserted it
quote::lol:
pray that the Lord opens your eyes to this deception
Foo, you keep presenting your OPINION as fact. Your case is NOT built on fact. It is built on opinion. A valid opinion, but just an opinion.
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/7/25 at 8:37 am
Let me try this a different way. Your position can be summed up in 2 basic assertions
1. YEC is historical narrative and is biblical. People of biblical times would have understood the creation account this way. Thus, it is the factual, default position.
2. OEC is metaphorical which is dangerous and only came about later to appease extrabiblical discoveries.
Both of these assertions are false. If you can dislodge those mistaken ideas from your brain, you will begin to have a more biblically sound position. Until then, your position is basically moderately-well informed, unecessarily dogmatic sunday school coffee talk.
Your characterization isn't scholarly, it's not biblically sound and it may not even be historically correct. THOSE are facts
1. YEC is historical narrative and is biblical. People of biblical times would have understood the creation account this way. Thus, it is the factual, default position.
2. OEC is metaphorical which is dangerous and only came about later to appease extrabiblical discoveries.
Both of these assertions are false. If you can dislodge those mistaken ideas from your brain, you will begin to have a more biblically sound position. Until then, your position is basically moderately-well informed, unecessarily dogmatic sunday school coffee talk.
Your characterization isn't scholarly, it's not biblically sound and it may not even be historically correct. THOSE are facts
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/7/25 at 12:21 am
quote:This makes YEC nonsensical. It makes perfect sense if yom means time period
It was used to describe the "days" before the sun was created and the "days" after the sun was created
quote:Those people are the ones telling you yom does not necessarily mean 24 hour period.
God--through Moses--was describing the creation in words that would have needed to be understood by the audience
quote:You are trying to be a mind reader and you aren't. You are putting words in their mouth which has nothing to do with the intent of the passage. If they meant morning and evening metaphorically and/or if the earth is actually old, then your position is completely obliterated
I've shown the receipts for everything I've said
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/7/25 at 12:12 am
You are just repeating yourself and arguing against strawman points. The conversation won't progress until you respond to the rebuttals. Just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh uhn" is not going to get anywhere.
The OEC interpretation has ALWAYS been a possibility, as long as the YEC position. The fact that something came along later to support the OEC position does not change that fact
Still wrong. It can be shown from scripture by itself and I have explained precisely how several times now. If you care to get over this hump, go back and read my posts where I explained it.
I agree. You are shoehorning "24 hour periods" into the theological meaning of the text. It is a brute fact that the length of yom is not part of the meaning of the story.
Apart from God's intervention, sure. But that's not what's being said here. What's being said is that the OEC interpretation is as old as the YEC interpretation and then something from general revelation came along and added substantiation to OEC. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.
I have done so numerous times and you are being obstinate about that.
Prove that Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period and that the week is not possibly representative of the creation account but literal. You can't because it's from them we learn that yom doesn't always mean 24 hours and you're not a mind reader
This is a strawman
OEC is a possible interpretation just like YEC. YEC is not the "default" position. YEC is not factual. It is a reasonable interpretation, but not factual
This has already been rebutted numerous times. There doesn't have to be an exact parallel elsewhere in scripture. Some things can be unique and that passage would be one of the most likely candidates.
Strawman #1000
Just like YEC. YEC is not the default position
You didn't respond to the point. What if it turns out that the age of the earth is actually old?
That is POSSIBLE, yes.
That are NOT necessarily applicable to the creation account. More obstinance
3. You have yet to prove how the length of yom is critical to people's salvation, worship, praxis, etc. Do not appeal to biblical inerrancy. There are PLENTY of OEM advocates over the course of decades who are biblical scholars and are champions of biblical inerrancy - that every word of the Bible is trustworthy and accurate. That the translation process is reliable. OEM does not injure biblical inerrancy at all.
4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range is similar to other metaphorical passages (hyperbolic numbers, eschatology, wisdom literature) then you are either ignorant or being obstinate in order to avoid being pinned down on the interpretation of creation.
5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.
6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.
7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.
8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.
9. I get that you are averse to using something outside scripture to interpret scripture. The account can have metaphorical language. Since that's the case, there is absolutely no reason why we can't supplement the interpretation of special revelation with general revelation and that absolutely would not be a case of "throwing out the biblical rules of interpretation." You are operating from the presumption that yom means 24 hour period and anything else is later and contrived. There is no reason to start from that presumption. Given that's the case, OEC can be just as literal as YEC. If OEC refers to ages and that's actually the case, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
Here's the state of your position:
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week could be typology
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language
9. You can't prove that other instances of yom are necessarily definitive for the creation account
quote:
It's precisely that you use "general revelation" to interpret Scripture here that I have a problem with
The OEC interpretation has ALWAYS been a possibility, as long as the YEC position. The fact that something came along later to support the OEC position does not change that fact
quote:
It's what I said from the beginning when I said that you were using other beliefs and presuppositions to guide your interpretation of the Scriptures in this case
Still wrong. It can be shown from scripture by itself and I have explained precisely how several times now. If you care to get over this hump, go back and read my posts where I explained it.
quote:
This is the epitome of eisegesis
I agree. You are shoehorning "24 hour periods" into the theological meaning of the text. It is a brute fact that the length of yom is not part of the meaning of the story.
quote:
For instance, "general revelation" could be used as a support to say that the dead do not rise, so therefore Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead
Apart from God's intervention, sure. But that's not what's being said here. What's being said is that the OEC interpretation is as old as the YEC interpretation and then something from general revelation came along and added substantiation to OEC. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.
quote:
This is why you cannot support your position from the text, itself
I have done so numerous times and you are being obstinate about that.
quote:
There is no indication from the Scriptures that the events of the first few chapters of Genesis took hundreds of thousands or millions of years
Prove that Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period and that the week is not possibly representative of the creation account but literal. You can't because it's from them we learn that yom doesn't always mean 24 hours and you're not a mind reader
quote:
so you have to insert that belief based on a prior commitment from "general revelation"
This is a strawman
quote:
You have not rebutted anything I've said so far. You have only given an alternative opinion without any support.
OEC is a possible interpretation just like YEC. YEC is not the "default" position. YEC is not factual. It is a reasonable interpretation, but not factual
quote:
Show me where in the Scriptures
This has already been rebutted numerous times. There doesn't have to be an exact parallel elsewhere in scripture. Some things can be unique and that passage would be one of the most likely candidates.
quote:
that yom can mean anything you want it to mean whenever it is used
Strawman #1000
quote:
More "could-be's"
Just like YEC. YEC is not the default position
quote:
You are not supporting your view. You are only saying that the age of the Earth could be old, therefore I'm wrong to say that it is young. I'm using the text to show my work, though, and you are not. If you want to debate, you need to support your position and attempt to refute mine.
You didn't respond to the point. What if it turns out that the age of the earth is actually old?
quote:
You keep talking about the semantic range as if the entire range is valid in every single instance the word is used
That is POSSIBLE, yes.
quote:
I provided multiple passages where the range is limited by the context exactly to show you how the range is limited by its context.
That are NOT necessarily applicable to the creation account. More obstinance
3. You have yet to prove how the length of yom is critical to people's salvation, worship, praxis, etc. Do not appeal to biblical inerrancy. There are PLENTY of OEM advocates over the course of decades who are biblical scholars and are champions of biblical inerrancy - that every word of the Bible is trustworthy and accurate. That the translation process is reliable. OEM does not injure biblical inerrancy at all.
4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range is similar to other metaphorical passages (hyperbolic numbers, eschatology, wisdom literature) then you are either ignorant or being obstinate in order to avoid being pinned down on the interpretation of creation.
5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.
6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.
7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.
8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.
9. I get that you are averse to using something outside scripture to interpret scripture. The account can have metaphorical language. Since that's the case, there is absolutely no reason why we can't supplement the interpretation of special revelation with general revelation and that absolutely would not be a case of "throwing out the biblical rules of interpretation." You are operating from the presumption that yom means 24 hour period and anything else is later and contrived. There is no reason to start from that presumption. Given that's the case, OEC can be just as literal as YEC. If OEC refers to ages and that's actually the case, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
Here's the state of your position:
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week could be typology
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language
9. You can't prove that other instances of yom are necessarily definitive for the creation account
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/5/25 at 8:25 pm
quote:Sigh. It's like people don't read.
The writer of Genesis, like everyone else in the ancient world, understood the world in terms of a 24 hour day
Jesus and his people are ones who told us that yom does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period. How can you say for sure that they meant that when they retold the creation story? You can't.
quote:Now this is a excellent observation. As I said, the possibility for OEC was ALWAYS in the creation account, even if it was unrealized by people until later. But that does not make OEC "novel" and YEC the default position, like YEC people usually presume.
Do I believe that the writer of Genesis intended "yom" to mean a 24 hour day? Yes, absolutely.
Do I believe that God created the universe in 6, 24 hour days? Absolutely not
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/5/25 at 8:22 pm
quote:I did no such thing genius
I’m still laughing at you pooh-poohing Jesus
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/4/25 at 8:01 pm
quote:It's been explained itt that the op does not contradict the biblical account. Did you catch on to that?
Oh well ok then
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/4/25 at 5:18 pm
These points need to be repeated
1. You are acting from the presumption that YEC is the central, literal truth and that everything else is peripheral that has to be "proven" in order to knock YEC out of the catbird seat. That is not the case. Just like the exodus, end times, etc, there are multiple POSSIBILITIES, of which YEC is just one.
2. The people you say interpreted yom as a 24 hour period are the ones who told us yom doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. Thus, it is misleading to say they thought of creation as based on 24 hour time periods.
3. YEC is not literal and OEC metaphorical. If it turns out that the age of the earth is old, then OEC would be literal and YEC would be metaphorical. They are different perspectives on the word yom. "Beginning" doesn't necessarily mean a certain 24 hour period. 7 day week can be typology, a representation.
4. OEC is not novel and created out of modern science. OEC was ALWAYS in the semantic range of the words, even if it was unrealized by people. The disciples thought genea meant that the 2nd coming would be within their lifetimes. When that didn't happen, dispensationalism was a popular view. Now, dispensationalism has fallen out of favor
1. You are acting from the presumption that YEC is the central, literal truth and that everything else is peripheral that has to be "proven" in order to knock YEC out of the catbird seat. That is not the case. Just like the exodus, end times, etc, there are multiple POSSIBILITIES, of which YEC is just one.
2. The people you say interpreted yom as a 24 hour period are the ones who told us yom doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. Thus, it is misleading to say they thought of creation as based on 24 hour time periods.
3. YEC is not literal and OEC metaphorical. If it turns out that the age of the earth is old, then OEC would be literal and YEC would be metaphorical. They are different perspectives on the word yom. "Beginning" doesn't necessarily mean a certain 24 hour period. 7 day week can be typology, a representation.
4. OEC is not novel and created out of modern science. OEC was ALWAYS in the semantic range of the words, even if it was unrealized by people. The disciples thought genea meant that the 2nd coming would be within their lifetimes. When that didn't happen, dispensationalism was a popular view. Now, dispensationalism has fallen out of favor
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/4/25 at 4:17 pm
quote:If it's out there, then post it here. :lol:
It’s out there if you bothered to look
I posted a list of scholars who disagree which proves there isn't any sort of "consensus." Go back and find it. You are wrong
quote:That's not what the Bible says so you can stop with the strawman
continue with your silly belief that the Israelites were always historically distinct
quote:I gave you resources so that you could get educated on this
and monotheistic
quote::lol: "evidence"
despite all evidence to the contrary
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/4/25 at 4:15 pm
quote:It could be interpreted as 2 million! Or it could be hyperbolic numbers which was common for ANE cultures.
Besides a Million seeming like a large number
quote:Yep. First, there just aren't many people digging around in the desert for proof of this. Second, they don't even know where to dig since the route is not known (2 main possibilities). They don't know what level to dig to because the timeline is not known (2 main possibilities). Archaeological corroboration for other biblical people/events/places is still being discovered so Finkelstein's argument from silence is stupid. "We should expect to see...."
it is very possible a culture that doesn't bury their bodies in a common place will leave no trace in an area like Sinai
Most importantly, just like the creation story, the number of people is not the point of the story.
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/3/25 at 11:14 pm
Foo, you are repeating yourself a lot so I'm going to consolidate some responses
This AGAIN constitutes as a rebuttal and it's the same things I've been saying all along
Here they are again. I have posted these points numerous times now
So have I
Strawman
He was a theistic evolutionist/progressive creationist. So you can stop with the strawman characterizations. Guess what else he said about the "hermeneutics" of the issue?
You can't see an inconsistency between "I think" and "clear/plain meaning"?? Unbelievable. Completely, needlessly recalcitrant. Not Christlike at all
Definitely not at the top of the priority list, that's for sure
This is a misleading statement and shows your lack of knowledge.
Another strawman
You made this up in your head. It's not real
Because we know this from history Foo. It was in the article I cited. Obstinate
1. You keep referring to grammar. Grammar is how sentences are constructed. It does play a role in how we understand communication. However, that's not the issue in this case. The issue is that yom can mean more than one thing regardless of the grammatical structure. The story absolutely can be about long ages and the theological point of the story is changed precisely none. You then claimed that morning and evening dictate a narrow definition of yom. Both of those words can absolutely be metaphorical and you can't deny that. It is absolutely a valid translation which in no way undermines the reliability of scripture. Those are facts. Denying them just shows an emotional commitment to something unnecessary.
2. You started grousing about metaphorical meanings so I would ask you why you allow for metaphorical meaning in some cases but not others. No doubt, you are going to respond "context." If so, refer back to #1.
3. You have yet to prove how the length of yom is critical to people's salvation, worship, praxis, etc. Do not appeal to biblical inerrancy. There are PLENTY of OEM advocates over the course of decades who are biblical scholars and are champions of biblical inerrancy - that every word of the Bible is trustworthy and accurate. That the translation process is reliable. OEM does not injure biblical inerrancy at all.
4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. Careful now. You're about to step on some landmines with that question. You might want to withdraw that question. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range and that fact is similar to other metaphorical passages (hyperbolic numbers, eschatology, wisdom literature) then you are either ignorant or being obstinate in order to avoid being pinned down on the interpretation of creation.
5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.
6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.
7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.
8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.
9. I get that you are averse to using something outside scripture to interpret scripture. The account can have metaphorical language. Since that's the case, there is absolutely no reason why we can't supplement the interpretation of special revelation with general revelation and that absolutely would not be a case of "throwing out the biblical rules of interpretation." You are operating from the presumption that yom means 24 hour period and anything else is later and contrived. There is no reason to start from that presumption. Given that's the case, OEC can be just as literal as YEC. If OEC refers to ages and that's actually the case, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
Here's the state of your position:
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week is typology
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language
This AGAIN constitutes as a rebuttal and it's the same things I've been saying all along
quote:
No you didn't. If you did, then I wouldn't keep asking you about it. You've shown me no evidence for your, or a rebuttal of mine.
Here they are again. I have posted these points numerous times now
quote:
I've provided Scriptural proof for my claims
So have I
quote:
You are essentially saying grammar doesn't matter.
Strawman
quote:
I don't know his position on that. Perhaps he claimed to be.
He was a theistic evolutionist/progressive creationist. So you can stop with the strawman characterizations. Guess what else he said about the "hermeneutics" of the issue?
quote:
Those things are not inconsistent
You can't see an inconsistency between "I think" and "clear/plain meaning"?? Unbelievable. Completely, needlessly recalcitrant. Not Christlike at all
quote:
at least one other poster here that doesn't think this is something we should care about.
Definitely not at the top of the priority list, that's for sure
quote:
And we are called to interpret the Bible by the Bible, not according to our understanding of science or anything else outside of the Bible
This is a misleading statement and shows your lack of knowledge.
quote:
If you make the genealogies metaphorical, then they can mean whatever you want them to mean
Another strawman
quote:
If you say there are gaps, you have to explain what the gaps are and for how long
You made this up in your head. It's not real
quote:
Explain how you get to that from the text rather than assuming it based on your presupposition of an old earth
Because we know this from history Foo. It was in the article I cited. Obstinate
1. You keep referring to grammar. Grammar is how sentences are constructed. It does play a role in how we understand communication. However, that's not the issue in this case. The issue is that yom can mean more than one thing regardless of the grammatical structure. The story absolutely can be about long ages and the theological point of the story is changed precisely none. You then claimed that morning and evening dictate a narrow definition of yom. Both of those words can absolutely be metaphorical and you can't deny that. It is absolutely a valid translation which in no way undermines the reliability of scripture. Those are facts. Denying them just shows an emotional commitment to something unnecessary.
2. You started grousing about metaphorical meanings so I would ask you why you allow for metaphorical meaning in some cases but not others. No doubt, you are going to respond "context." If so, refer back to #1.
3. You have yet to prove how the length of yom is critical to people's salvation, worship, praxis, etc. Do not appeal to biblical inerrancy. There are PLENTY of OEM advocates over the course of decades who are biblical scholars and are champions of biblical inerrancy - that every word of the Bible is trustworthy and accurate. That the translation process is reliable. OEM does not injure biblical inerrancy at all.
4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. Careful now. You're about to step on some landmines with that question. You might want to withdraw that question. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range and that fact is similar to other metaphorical passages (hyperbolic numbers, eschatology, wisdom literature) then you are either ignorant or being obstinate in order to avoid being pinned down on the interpretation of creation.
5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.
6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.
7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.
8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.
9. I get that you are averse to using something outside scripture to interpret scripture. The account can have metaphorical language. Since that's the case, there is absolutely no reason why we can't supplement the interpretation of special revelation with general revelation and that absolutely would not be a case of "throwing out the biblical rules of interpretation." You are operating from the presumption that yom means 24 hour period and anything else is later and contrived. There is no reason to start from that presumption. Given that's the case, OEC can be just as literal as YEC. If OEC refers to ages and that's actually the case, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
quote:
You can't seem to understand basic arguments and I feel like I'm casting pearls before swine, unfortunately.
Here's the state of your position:
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week is typology
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/3/25 at 11:05 pm
quote:Hey, how about that consensus you promised everybody. Let me guess, global shipping delays?? :lol:
Mo Jeaux
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/2/25 at 7:59 pm
quote:Think about this. There are currently multiple streams of thought on eschatology.
what interpretative model do you support
Supralapsarianism
Infralapsarianism
Pretrib
Midtrib
Posttrib
Premil
Postmil
Amil
In the end, all of those can't be right. Only one stream is going to end up matching what happens. Still, they all, at this time, fall within the translation scope allowed by the text. People are interpreting the best they can given the info we have at our disposal at this time. But no one knows for sure because none of us have been to the end of time.
It's the exact same situation with the creation story because the language allows for multiple views.
Moreover, you're saying we have to know the correct ideas first and we're not allowed to explore the scope of the text as time passes. That's ridiculous and needlessly dogmatic. It's completely unreasonable and unbiblical.
And again, your concern is that people changed the meaning of the text based on outside factors. That did not happen. OEC was always there as a possibility, although unrealized. The theological meaning changed none
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/2/25 at 4:55 pm
quote:
I've already given proof that it was interpreted by Moses and Jesus as historical language rather than poetic
Good for them. Now prove that God, despite the fact that he could have chosen different communication for the creation account, intends for yom to ALWAYS mean a literal 24 hour period. You can't because you're not God.
quote:
so you need to make your case. You haven't done that yet.
Why do you keep saying this? I have made a case all along. You're acting like OEC doesn't exist
quote:
As a Reformed Christian, I hold to sola scriptura, where I must let the Scriptures be the highest authority for faith and life.
Would you describe Billy Graham this way?
quote:
If God speaks to something, I need to listen and not try to change His messaging to fit my own desires.
Another strawman
quote:
I strongly believe that the Scriptures do not hint at long periods of time in creation for the reasons I've submitted several times already. Because of this, I go where the Bible teaches me. Why should I be "agnostic" on an issue that I believe the Bible is clear about?
You can't even see the inconsistency in these sentences. You started with "I believe" and then you said "the Bible is clear." Those are inconsistent. If the Bible is "clear," then we KNOW, not "believe." "Believe" implies the possibility for other "beliefs." If scripture is "clear," there is no room for other "beliefs." This is a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. You have backed into admission that OEC advocates can be legitimate followers of Jesus but you can't let go of the fact that you think some compromise is going on.
quote:
If God revealed something about creation to us, we should seek to rightly understand it.
Do you honestly believe that OEC advocates feel any differently than you about this?
quote:
I'm not sure how He could have
This is a problem. Now you are limiting God
quote:
that's not what God does with historical narratives.
OEC is not any less "historical" than YEC. You keep acting from this presumption
quote:
I believe the fact that He used "morning", "evening", and "first", etc. was God being absolutely clear
There's that cognitive dissonance again. "Believe" vs "clear"
quote:
I think you are the one putting ambiguity into the text where it doesn't belong, and doesn't grammatically work.
Grammar doesn't have a say one way or the other. The words can be metaphorical. OEC is not more ambiguous than YEC. It's just different
quote:
When I say "plain meaning", I'm talking about the most common and natural way a text can be interpreted based on its context and usage within the passage. I've explained in detail why I think this is the case.
Plenty of people disagree with you and you have admitted you don't think their soteriology is affected. Since that's the case, there's no reason to use words like "clear" and "plain meaning." To OEC advocates, their interpretation is parsimonious and bolsters their worship
quote:
Not at all. If you think so, you should provide evidence from Scripture to refute it.
This isn't about scripture. This is about you characterizing OEC advocates of doing something that you have even admitted they don't do.
quote:
There Scriptures, themselves, do not provide justification for OEC based on the text, itself.
You are wrong on this matter and need to pray about it
quote:
There has to be some other reason for coming to that conclusion based on something outside of the text being used to interpret the text toward that conclusion.
Nope. That is a strawman. And having something outside scripture corroborate the text is not a crime. Not in any way. Think about what you’re saying, we have to read the Bible and settle on an ineluctable translation despite any metaphor in scripture and that interpretation can NEVER change despite anything we come to know and that God most certainly intended it to be that way even though scripture itself doesn’t say that. That is absolutely unbiblical, contrary to time honored textual scholarship. Nevermind that the Bible was not always written and there isn’t always a 1:1 translation equivalent for every word in the Bible. It’s absurd. It seems you haven’t worked this out to its logical conclusion
quote:
Then show me from the Scriptures how you arrive at an OEC view.
? You're saying the Bible doesn't have metaphor? Just look at any analogous language. Ecc 3:1-8. Revelations. etc.
quote:
At the end of the day, whether you believe there are gaps in the genealogies or not, the genealogies given do not support hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years.
They CAN
quote:
As has already been stated, the best you can do is up to likely 7-10,000 years from the genealogies
Says who? I can see that you're trying to skirt hyperbolic use of numbers (metaphor) in ancient societies because it is absolutely a loser for yom being only a 24 hour period. It shows precisely that ancient people did not always use precise mathematical numbers or scientific language for describing or understanding things
quote:
unless you want to say that they have absolutely no bearing on chronology and that they, themselves, are more like a metaphor for something.
Strawman
quote:
Whether you extend it out to 10k or even 15k-20k as an absolute stretch, you do not get the long ages that are supposed by OECs that I'm aware of.
You CAN get long ages
quote:
However you interpret the age of the earth, Jesus said that God created male and female "from the beginning of creation".
How does that undermine OEC?
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/2/25 at 4:51 pm
quote:
Can you show me any example within the text of Scripture where the word yom is translated as something other than a 24-hour period of time when it is modified by the words "morning" or "evening", and has a number associated with it?
quote:
otherwise you would have to admit that yom can mean literally anything the reader wants it to mean, which would make many passages unintelligible.
quote:
Context absolutely determines how a passage of Scripture should be read. There are many different genres being represented in the Scriptures and in order to understand what God is telling us, we have to read His words in light of how He is communicating.
I addressed these comments in my previous response to you
quote:
Once again, I didn't say OEC necessarily destroys biblical inerrancy or automatically makes someone a heretic, only that it can due to how one must throw out the biblical rules of Bible interpretation to get there, as you seem to be doing.
OEC does nothing to "throw out the biblical rules of Bible interpretation." That is made up in your head. You are wrong on this issue and there are OEC advocates who espouse biblical inerrancy. BTW, those "rules" you refer to are not as hard and fast as you think they are. If you disagree, explain election, preterism, tribulation\Daniel 7, etc. I. e. metaphorical language meaning, capable of being interpreted different ways yet the theological meaning isn’t undermined
quote:
You're bringing up an example of numbering only, which can be affected by scribal errors or even how numbers are used in ancient Hebrew.
There are scholars who have made the case that the biblical authors, like other ancient people, used numbers in a hyperbolic way. MUCH LIKE YOM. It's the EXACT same thing. So you tried to skirt the issue but I'll keep asking if you like.
quote:
Regarding Noah, I chose that as an example precisely because the number (40) is modified in a similar way to Genesis 1 in terms of time.
It's a good parallel but not decisive and I explained why in my previous response to you
quote:
The grammar doesn't support it.
Grammar does not deny it either. The grammar doesn't make a decision either way
quote:
The same creation account was used by the same author as the basis for the 7-day week which ended with the Sabbath that the people of God needed to keep.
The "basis" for, not necessarily a scientific statement about the length of yom. A representation, as in metaphorical.
quote:
whatever was actually meant in Genesis 1 has to fit within the interpretative paradigm of the 4th commandment and Jesus' teaching on creation.
And metaphorical language can absolutely do that
quote:
The straight-forward, literalistic reading of the historical narrative of creation fits within those boundaries.
OEC can also
quote:
I've said multiple times that OEC won't lead to heresy by itself, but the interpretative framework used by OEC could lead to heresy.
It's astonishing that you here admit you don't see wholesale evidence of compromised doctrine yet, you continue to doomcast and be unnecessarily dogmatic in your assertions. That is a personal, emotional problem. Not an intellectual problem. Your concern could be said about almost anything doctrinal
quote:
I'm not interested in those things for this discussion.
They are part of the debate
quote:
you have not proposed or defended any particular claims beyond that the word yom has a larger semantic range
AND that you agree morning/evening can be metaphorical AND that they don't have to have another parallel in scripture AND that hyperbolic language is used in scripture which you accept AND you agree there's no evidence that OEC in and of itself leads to heresy
quote:
that statement alone doesn't negate my position
I never said it did. It's been my case all along that YEC is a valid interpretation
quote:
nor does it support yours.
yom having multiple shades of length absolutely does support the OEC position. OEC is founded upon it
quote:
I'm saying that the methodology used to get there can certainly lead to heresy.
So can biblical literalism so why aren’t you doomcasting about a 24 hour interpretation potentially leading to heresy? You're just exercising your opinion that your view of context leads you to believe that YEC is the better view in which case I refer you back to #1 in my previous post
quote:
Apples and oranges. Eschatology relies on a lot of poetic and apocalyptic language. The age of the earth doesn't.
The age of the earth CAN use metaphorical language just like eschatology can. It's absolutely not apples and oranges. "Poetic and apocalyptic" language are by definition metaphorical. Foo, this is bad.
quote:
You need to prove that Genesis 1 is poetic and metaphorical language rather than historical first.
Poetry and metaphor does not equal ahistorical. Again, if you think that then the potential hyperbolic numbers in the exodus account becomes a serious problem for you
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/2/25 at 3:41 pm
quote:Because I didn't make the initial claim of consensus genius. Why is this so hard for you to understand. If you make a claim and don't back it up, Jeaux, then people are likely to not take you seriously
You only provided a list after I accused you of being a hypocrite for not providing it while demanding proof from others
quote:Yes, you were complaining about my challenge. Put on your big boy pants and find out if I'm correct. Or just keep having your mom wipe your rear end for you
then you went off on some diatribe about how I should have provided your list
quote:It's astonishing that you can't grasp what is happening despite it being explained to you multiple times. How did you get through school when the instructor gave you an assignment? Did you hire other people to do your work for you? Did you never write a research paper?
You can't seriously be this retarded, can you?
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/2/25 at 1:06 pm
quote:Including the fact that I provided a list as was requested so you're contradicting yourself.
I'm the only one in our conversation that's actually quoted previous posts
Did I provide a list, yes or no? If yes, then what in the world are you even talking about. If no, go back and find the post where I provided a list to know that your accusation of me "asking others to provide what I wouldn't provide myself" is a lie
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted by somethingdifferent on 6/2/25 at 9:18 am
quote:I don't understand why you say on this point "I don't think" and then form a concrete, unmovable opinion. An opinion that's unecessary I might add given that IRL, OEC doesn't seem to be corrupting people. I don't understand why you can't be agnostic on the matter. It wouldn't change anything one way or the other.
I don't think that would then form the basis of literal interpretations by Moses and others
quote:And God could have chosen different wording in the creation account that could have prevented any flexibility whatsoever
Jesus, in particular, could have set the record straight, since He corrected misunderstandings of the Jews all the time
quote:YEC is not the plain meaning. The meaning isn't about the length of yom
the plain meaning of the text in terms of the creation account
quote:Strawman
interpret the Bible based on humanistic understanding and interpretations of the natural evidences
quote:I've already told you OEC does the same thing
I have to go with God's word as the standard
Popular
29
