Life pushed back

Well I'm guessing most christians around the globe who are not young earthers and have no problems with evolution would view this as an exciting scientific discovery. For the others, many living in America, I'll bet you it was the Evil Atheist Conspiracy or the devil trying to trick us.
 
triadboy said:
How do xians view this?
Click to expand...

Did you think any post here? Many today, I suspect, look on the writings as allegorical in any case.

What will be more interesting is when CEbSM (current estimate by Scientific method) age of life is dated in a comet or asteroid at CEbSM age of earth plus a hundred million years or so. At least then evolutionists won't have to depend on terran abiogenesis; it would have occured elsewhere/elsewhen and completely out of our reach for analysis.
 
Re: Re: Life pushed back

hammegk said:
What will be more interesting is when CEbSM (current estimate by Scientific method) age of life is dated in a comet or asteroid at CEbSM age of earth plus a hundred million years or so. At least then evolutionists won't have to depend on terran abiogenesis; it would have occured elsewhere/elsewhen and completely out of our reach for analysis.
Click to expand...

Somehow we need to get Christians on those planets to torment life there.
 
Christian here... Rachaella got it in one. Triadboy, you need to clarify which Christians you are referring to, although I have an inkling of an idea.;)
 
jaderook01 said:
Christian here... Rachaella got it in one. Triadboy, you need to clarify which Christians you are referring to, although I have an inkling of an idea.;)
Click to expand...

You're right. Young Earthers won't like it, But how does this jive with the Genesis story? How do Old Earthers see Genesis?
 
triadboy said:


You're right. Young Earthers won't like it, But how does this jive with the Genesis story? How do Old Earthers see Genesis?
Click to expand...

Probably metaphorical.
 
triadboy said:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040423/sc_nm/science_lava_dc

How do xians view this?
Click to expand...
I enjoyed reading the article and I don't have an axe to grind - I'm fairly sure that the Earth is older than 6K years based on scientific evidence. The Genesis story? Written to communicate creation to the people in a way that made sense at the time (my guesstimate). The verse I always thought was really interesting is Genesis 1:28: "And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH..."

Replenish means to make full or complete AGAIN (Random House Dictionary). It means to me that the Earth is older than man and that something BIG happened before man came on the scene.

Triadboy, this is probably not a very good response to you, but it's the best I can do not being a scientist, archeologist or bible scholar - I'm still thinking and studying. Maybe there are more educated people who will share their thougts.
 
I take a combo approach of part metaphor and part literal. I feel that what Genesis doesn't say leaves the door open to quite a few possibilities.
 
triadboy said:


But if the Fall of Man is a metaphor - what good is Jesus?
Click to expand...
I thought the subject was about evidence of ancient life in volcanic rock.
 
I thought the subject was about evidence of ancient life in volcanic rock.
Click to expand...

So did I, but I can see the leap of thought here. Yes, taking everything entirely metpaphorically would present the problem of Jesus being unnecessary. This is why I don't take everything to be metaphor. On scriptural interpretation, I've heard it put this way before: Take it literally when obvious, metaphorically when not.
 
Any interpritation of the bible that conflicts with scientific facts is wrong.
 
jaderook01 said:


So did I, but I can see the leap of thought here. Yes, taking everything entirely metpaphorically would present the problem of Jesus being unnecessary. This is why I don't take everything to be metaphor. On scriptural interpretation, I've heard it put this way before: Take it literally when obvious, metaphorically when not.
Click to expand...
Yes, but when is it obvious and when not? I've been studying and pondering for a very long time and still wonder if I've botched interpretations. Plus, the leap from Genesis to Jesus is 4K years - a big leap, indeed!
 
geni said:
Any interpritation of the bible that conflicts with scientific facts is wrong.
Click to expand...

I disagree. An interpretation is correct if it properly explains what the author intended.

If that in turn is false, it is the author who is wrong, not the interpretation.
 
Any interpritation of the bible that conflicts with scientific facts is wrong.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, but science isn't static. The bible on the other hand asserts itself to be such. Many scientific facts as we currently know them seem to be inconsistent with a certain interpretation of scripture. However, I believe that the bible itself is open (within reason) to various interpretations that doesn't leave it out of odds with science. That is just me though.
 
Yes, but when is it obvious and when not? I've been studying and pondering for a very long time and still wonder if I've botched interpretations. Plus, the leap from Genesis to Jesus is 4K years - a big leap, indeed!
Click to expand...

Well, it is obvious on points where people tend not to disagree. :D
 
Abdul Alhazred said:


I disagree. An interpretation is correct if it properly explains what the author intended.

If that in turn is false, it is the author who is wrong, not the interpretation.
Click to expand...

Since we can't really ask the author what they intended you are going to have great fun aplying this to the bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom