The significance of the time intervals is that the Bible makes no statement about the age of the universe or the age of planet Earth. As a consequence, the biblical text is consistent with an old universe and an old Earth, both billions of years old. This result is found for any view of the time length of the creative "yom".
The Bible does make a statement about a beginning to the universe, a fact which science has grudgingly now accepted, thereby attesting to the truth of the first testable truth statement of the Bible.
Things Genesis One Does and Does Not Say (a partial list):
Genesis One does say that there was a beginning to the universe and planet Earth. Genesis One does say that God created the heavens and the Earth. Genesis One does say that planet Earth was not always as it is now; changes have occurred. Genesis One does say that God acted to bring the present condition of the Earth into being. Genesis One does not specify an age for the Earth or an age for the universe. Genesis One does not say that the creative times (yom) are 24 hours in duration. Genesis One does not say that the creative times (yom) followed immediately one after another. Genesis One does not say that the commands were fulfilled immediately, like a bolt of lightning.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
LittleNipper wrote:These things have I spoken to you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.
You do realize that the primary method recommended by Mormons to verify the truth of what they say is from this very same comforter you say backs you up?
Does it even occur to you that Mormons are as firm in their convictions as you are in yours and arrived there pretty much the same way you did with your beliefs?
Not a very reliable verification process you got there now is it?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
LittleNipper wrote:Well, that Ishmael is not Biblical truth. God hates slavery and that is why Jesus came to set the captives free. The truth will set one free and not lies.
son of Ishmael wrote:If god really hated slavery, why didn't just put it in the ten commandments? Seems he could have just added it in there with a quick swipe of his finger. "Thou shall not make slaves of they fellow human beings" or something like that.
When Moses came down with the carved 38 commandments, his people send him back to make a better deal. Second time he said: - I have a good news and a bad one. The good is that there are only ten. The bad is that the one with adultery has remained...
There are / maybe commandments with different importance...
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
LittleNipper wrote:This is why most Protestants were against slave ownership and this ended slavery in England and finally the United States.
No, English Protestantism did not exactly end slavery. What England did was to move the institution of slavery off shore, to the Western Hemisphere, while continuing to import slave-produced goods. Even during the Civil War, England's textile industry looked to King Cotton as a source of raw material. Only after the North managed to blockade Southern ports did England wean itself of Southern cotton.
_________________ Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. I've worked with the Historian's office. Their mandate is to preserve history and make it available to scholars and others, not to write about it. The clerks who work in the department are more clueless on some basic issues of history than I am, and that's not saying much. --Robert D. Crockett
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. --Yahoo Bot
I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess. --Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
LittleNipper wrote:These things have I spoken to you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.
You do realize that the primary method recommended by Mormons to verify the truth of what they say is from this very same comforter you say backs you up?
Does it even occur to you that Mormons are as firm in their convictions as you are in yours and arrived there pretty much the same way you did with your beliefs?
Not a very reliable verification process you got there now is it?
The Disciples were reminded of what Christ said and did. Mormons seem to make it up as they go along. The disciples' remembrances were just that ---- remembrances. These remembrances do not contradict the Old Testament ---- Mormonism does... (example: no other god & no one remains married in heaven)
LittleNipper wrote:This is why most Protestants were against slave ownership and this ended slavery in England and finally the United States.
No, English Protestantism did not exactly end slavery. What England did was to move the institution of slavery off shore, to the Western Hemisphere, while continuing to import slave-produced goods. Even during the Civil War, England's textile industry looked to King Cotton as a source of raw material. Only after the North managed to blockade Southern ports did England wean itself of Southern cotton.
_________________ Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. I've worked with the Historian's office. Their mandate is to preserve history and make it available to scholars and others, not to write about it. The clerks who work in the department are more clueless on some basic issues of history than I am, and that's not saying much. --Robert D. Crockett
Well, is that different today with goods imported from Communist Red China? The covert Christian influence is still there pointing a finger and saying that such is evil and will eventually be punished.
LittleNipper wrote:First you beat me up saying that other "Christians " have different opinions concerning this or that.
No, I pointed out that you were just throwing whatever you could find against the wall and hoping something would stick. You never came back to defend a word of anything you posted, you just moved on to the next hit you found on Google. I've explained what Gen 6:2-4 does and doesn't mean. If you don't like it, that's a you problem.
And I disagree. Get over it. I am a Christian and I do not know what you are; however, that is between you and God. I know that the Flood happened and I know that the reason the Bible shares is that violence was dominating.
LittleNipper wrote:And I disagree. Get over it. I am a Christian and I do not know what you are; however, that is between you and God. I know that the Flood happened and I know that the reason the Bible shares is that violence was dominating.
How do you know? All existing evidence flatly precludes it.
LittleNipper wrote:The Disciples were reminded of what Christ said and did. Mormons seem to make it up as they go along. The disciples' remembrances were just that ---- remembrances. These remembrances do not contradict the Old Testament
Then why does James' quotation of Amos 9 in Acts 15 completely change the meaning of vv. 11-12, (coincidentally in exactly the same way the Septuagint's mistranslation of the words אדום and ירש change them)?
LittleNipper wrote:The Disciples were reminded of what Christ said and did. Mormons seem to make it up as they go along. The disciples' remembrances were just that ---- remembrances. These remembrances do not contradict the Old Testament ---- Mormonism does... (example: no other god & no one remains married in heaven)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I asked you.
Focus LN. Please distinguish between the verification process you use (the comforter) and the one Mormons use, which is that same comforter. Since you are clearly getting destroyed by Makelan in any attempts to prove your brand of Christianity via your own shallow Biblical interpretations, your only resort is to claim a sure knowledge through this verification process, one that does not produce any consistent results.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."