Young earthers vs Old earthers the conspiracy keeps growing.

Originally posted by dbrandt


There was also a problem with the angels that sinned and had offspring with human women. that seems to be a major part of the reason for the flood, which can be attributed to sin.

Do you know how much polytheistic references was in the bible? Before the modern bible came to be.

The references to "Angels" of the Bible now may have been the references of "Deities" in ancient test until every vestiges of polytheism was eradicated from the ancient scripts.

Remember dbrant that the influences of polytheistic civilizations from Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria and Egypt was introduced to the Hebrews while they were a tribe without nation and before becoming the Israeli nation.

Now on the "Creationist" as a movement, well they are an organized group, but which one do you identify more with the Old earthers or young earthers.

Originally posted by marg6043
Now on the "Creationist" as a movement, well they are an organized group, but which one do you identify more with the Old earthers or young earthers.

I believe that the earth is young.

Ok, I guess you have your own believes, but do you believe is only 6000 years or more?

Old earthers believe that is older but men has been around only 6000 years.

That is the difference of young earther vs. old earthers, old earthers tend to understand and assimilate evolution as long as is not humans involve.

Good thread Marg!

A comment or two;

There is nothing within the book of Job to suggest that he was in fact a Jew. His 'wisdom' writings also closelyy resemble Egyptian wisdom literature.

As for "angels" copulating with the human woman, perhaps someone, anyone, would be kind enough to reference the relative text in The OT Bible.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Good thread Marg!


As for "angels" copulating with the human woman, perhaps someone, anyone, would be kind enough to reference the relative text in The OT Bible.

Genesis ch.6 Jude and Peter mention it also in the NT.

Originally posted by dbrandtGenesis ch.6 Jude and Peter mention it also in the NT.

It has become clear to me that I must reiterate my position and questions until they are adequately addressed, such that this is what I said and asked; "There is nothing within the book of Job to suggest that he was in fact a Jew. His 'wisdom' writings also closelyy resemble Egyptian wisdom literature.

As for "angels" copulating with the human woman, perhaps someone, anyone, would be kind enough to reference the relative text in The OT Bible.

I see nothing in your response that addresses Job, and for that matter, I see nothing in your response that addresses angels copulating with humans. Unless of course you wish to label the "sons of god" as being angels, in which case your Jesus at best was an angel.

As for Jude, who cares what the NT redactors have to say, I believe I expressly addressed, the Old testament, no? Focus!

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
As for "angels" copulating with the human woman, perhaps someone, anyone, would be kind enough to reference the relative text in The OT Bible.

I see nothing in your response that addresses Job, and for that matter, I see nothing in your response that addresses angels copulating with humans. Unless of course you wish to label the "sons of god" as being angels, in which case your Jesus at best was an angel.

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7)


There are a couple of places in the OT where a preincarnate Jesus is referred to as THE Angel of the Lord.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
As for "angels" copulating with the human woman, perhaps someone, anyone, would be kind enough to reference the relative text in The OT Bible.

I see nothing in your response that addresses Job, and for that matter, I see nothing in your response that addresses angels copulating with humans. Unless of course you wish to label the "sons of god" as being angels, in which case your Jesus at best was an angel.

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7)


There are a couple of places in the OT where a preincarnate Jesus is referred to as THE Angel of the Lord.

I play to the weak of mind, I must remember that, and so it becomes necessary to repeat my charge over and over, such that this nonsense:

Originally posted by dbrandt"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7)

Along with that offered previously, shows that you are still lacking a direct response, since my statement relative to Job was;

ME- : There is nothing within the book of Job to suggest that he was in fact a Jew. His 'wisdom' writings also closely resemble Egyptian wisdom literature.

And I still see nothing in your retort to suggest Job was a Jew, so you once again waste my time. Dig in your heels and hope to find some semblance of thought, I grow weary hoping you can muster a challenge, for which you may thank my benevolence for the indulgence.

My next question was specifically:

ME- As for "angels" copulating with the human woman, perhaps someone, anyone, would be kind enough to reference the relative text in The OT Bible. AND I believe I expressly addressed, the Old testament, no? Focus!

To which I receive in return this sidestep:

YOU-There are a couple of places in the OT where a preincarnate Jesus is referred to as THE Angel of the Lord.

For once in your life; answer the questions!





[edit on 7/3/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Rren
"i've got it all figured out, so let me show you why your a moron" threads. But what the heck i'm here kids are napping why not.

I would have accepted your post as a good challenge but with that line above you just killed my response to you, I do not take well insults, all you had to do was to post your views and that was it "the moron thread" was unnecessary.

Nice tactic marg, but it aint selling. Your statement, as quoted by Rren is obnoxiously wrong. I'm not real sure you should expect to be treated with any measure of delicacy if you decide to pen an entire thread discussion on a statement that shows little to no knowledge on the basic topic you're trying to discuss.

Something tells me you should have taken two breaths and a bit longer before making that statement.

Especially considering your Catholic upbringing.

Actually Rren was very courteous to me and expressed his or her concerns about the thread personaly.

Taking in consideration that the subject of the thread is very debatable occurs many people will express their disagreement or agreement with the statements.

I welcome any post that will encourage discussion and debate without having to go into insults.

Thanks for your concern Val and please your opinions are very valuable to me, if is anything you want to add to the post go ahead, I will hate to see it die down, I think is a very good subject and in the right forum.

marg.

Originally posted by ValhallNice tactic marg, but it aint selling. Your statement, as quoted by Rren is obnoxiously wrong.

I must interject here for I see no obnoxious statement made my Marg such as that placed in quotation marks by Rren.

I find Marg to be one of the most polite members of this board, and if you would be so kind as to direct me to either where she made the moron comment, or the connection between your quotation of Rren and Marg's words, I guarantee you that I will personally voice public disappointment in Marg and I am one of her biggest fans.

I'm not real sure you should expect to be treated with any measure of delicacy if you decide to pen an entire thread discussion on a statement that shows little to no knowledge on the basic topic you're trying to discuss.

Second point, what knowledge was she lacking?

Something tells me you should have taken two breaths and a bit longer before making that statement.

Umhmm. It is called being a bit too hasty.

Originally posted by Rren
Ok....wow, this is way off in so many ways. Don't usually get involved in the "i've got it all figured out, so let me show you why your a moron" threads. But what the heck i'm here kids are napping why not.

Not sure if it's blind hatred or simple ignorance of the debate. Can almost 'see' you guys foaming at the mouth, yelling at your screens as you type. Look if evolution (every bit of it) is true then the debate with only strengthen and deepen our understanding of it ... so relax

marg6043

The creationist movement is almost exclusively the Protestant American Fundamentalist movement that seeks to impose on the general public, by “Political” means, a religion that revolves around the creation stories of the bible.

Almost exclusively a Protestant American Fundamentalist movement? Really, care to back that rubbish up with some facts? And Creationism has nothing to do with "imposing the general public, by “Political” means, a religion that revolves around the creation stories of the bible." Some Creationists certainly are attempting this and your problem is with those people and not creationism as a whole. You label us all the same way an atheist labels all Christians as Dobson or Frist. I am a Creationist, in that i believe God is the creator, and i do NOT fit any of your so-called criteria. Anyone who believes God is the creator is a Creationist technically. I like to look for evidence of His creation in science, not change science to fit my beliefs. Sure some due this, BUT it has nothing to due with Creationism. The world is full of ***holes, but i guess i don't need to tell you that.

There you go - that's the part you missed. That's the part marg feigned being abused over....when, in fact, she wasn't. She was corrected on a most obnoxiously wrong statement.

Originally posted by Valhall
There you go - that's the part you missed. That's the part marg feigned being abused over....when, in fact, she wasn't. She was corrected on a most obnoxiously wrong statement.

No! I have missed nothing, and I know I have missed nothing for you reference nothing!

Marg was not corrected on anything obnoxious except in your mind. if you were honest you would note that Rren mistakenly used the quotation marks which to many represent another's words. Rren was in fact utilizing freeform speech where s/he interpreted Marg's post to his/her understanding, but nowhere did Marg suggest the charge of moronic thought.

You misread Rren! You could not have read Marg's post, or did so with a preconceived bent.

And until you can show Marg's supposedly obnoxious statement then, you! owe Marg an apology.

Here is marg's obnoxiously wrong - wait, let's not hold anything back here - obnoxiously ignorant - statement.

I've bolded the quotation marks to ensure you know I darned well mean to put these words in her mouth.

"The creationist movement is almost exclusively the Protestant American Fundamentalist movement that seeks to impose on the general public, by “Political” means, a religion that revolves around the creation stories of the bible. "

Now - either marg wants to make that statement knowing it is false - or she wants to treat everybody like a moron - OR she really knows so little of what she speaks she thinks that's true.

That's pretty much the only options I see available to her

I owe no one an apology.


[edit on 7-4-2005 by Valhall]

Firstly, I will be addressing this misstatement

You-I owe no one an apology.

You now owe Marg two apologies! One for posting unsubstantiated information against her, and the second for outright lying!

Originally posted by Valhall
Here is marg's obnoxiously wrong - wait, let's not hold anything back here - obnoxiously ignorant - statement.

I've bolded the quotation marks to ensure you know I darned well mean to put these words in her mouth.

"The creationist movement is almost exclusively the Protestant American Fundamentalist movement that seeks to impose on the general public, by “Political” means, a religion that revolves around the creation stories of the bible. "

Now - either marg wants to make that statement knowing it is false - or she wants to treat everybody like a moron - OR she really knows so little of what she speaks she thinks that's true.

Fine let us review. Here is the excerpt as made by Rren which you quoted

YOU- "i've got it all figured out, so let me show you why your a moron" threads. But what the heck i'm here kids are napping why not.”

Note the quotation marks as used by Rren, where for the life me, neither my browser, MSN Word or WordPerfect search can find the word:“moron” attributed to Marg. But that is what you choose to reference.

This is your claim:

YOU- Your statement, as quoted by Rren is obnoxiously wrong.

There is no statement of Marg’s quoted by Rren, is that correct Valhall? So conceptually Valhall, you either chose to misled the readers or you have outright lied. I vote for neither, since I claim you just sought the opportunity to attack Marg and attached said attack to a fallacious but unintended charge.

There is no revision allowed here, and none that I will not challenge if you are intent to introduce new evidence, for your charge and quotation was clear, Valhall . You have yet to show where Marg made an obnoxious statement as offered in your initial post, and have further to show your ability to climb out of the hole you created with the ill-conceived “obnoxious” charge. Do not attempt to play with me, you will knowingly lose!

The onus is on you to show where Marg meets your initial charges. This is your second chance, I allow you three.


[edit on 7/4/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

nice try somewhere. Now - you go off and play yourself and I'll stick with what I said in the first place.

marg - when you step up and create a discussion thread based on a false statement, and then some one comes in and corrects you...

IT'S NOT ABUSE!

And no matter whether you're voted Miss Congeniality or not...that remains a truth.

Though it might make our own little bellies all happy inside to a pick a group we don't like and blame everything from athlete's foot to zionism on them...a false statement is a false statement. And an attempt, based on distortions of reality, to further your hatred to a group is hateful, manipulative deceit.

Originally posted by marg604338:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

These are constellations, ie stars, not a comment on the actual structure of the universe.

dbrant
What do you think makes up the universe?

Super clusters of galaxies. THe presentation of the universe in the bible is that of the ground that you walk upon with a sky hung above it, then things like the sun and moon, and then stars. No metion of extra-solar planets, no mention of galaxies and groups of galaxies, or any of that. If one was a creator describing the universe, you'd probably mention those kinds of things. But, of course, since the whole thing is taken on faith anyway, and we can't actually know anything about a supernatural thing, god could've presented the universe in any number of ways.

If this is an actual organized movement with elected officers I don't know anything about it

Infact, it is. Its an organized political movement. Research it. Look at groups like AIG and ICR and the 'Discovery Institute'. They have officers, agendas, meetings, etc etc. Often these groups illegally try to use a claim of being tax exempt churches to fund their activities, like with the recent case of Kent Hovind (of 'drdino.com').

But if you believe the Bible, then believers in the Bible are not called to make creationism their #1 priority.

Indeed, many would argue that this is a big problem with Creationism (aka Scientific Creationism, etc), that it focuses far too much on a claim that the bible is a science document. One might even look at its insistance that god be a material sort of thing that can be reduced to logical naturalistic laws as a type of apostasy. Certainly its a poor faith that require mountains of 'scientific' evidence to sustain it.

"The creationist movement is almost exclusively the Protestant American Fundamentalist movement that seeks to impose on the general public, by “Political” means, a religion that revolves around the creation stories of the bible

This statement is rather accurate. Of course, there are catholics who beleive in creationism, but thats not the position of the church and its generalyl not an issue with most catholics, and I don't think its an issue with the Orthodox either, so protestant is rather accurate. Fundamentalist is a little tricky, since there is mainstream ignorance of the issues of evolution and you have a lot of people that accept in an off handed sort of way creationism (or more often people who think that "scientific creationism" and evolutionary biology can 'co-exist'), so that tends to take it out of the fundamentalist sector a little bit, but its generally accurate.

And as far as it being a political movement, thats rather obvious. Its not a scientific movement, it doesn't seek change by making a good case for itself, but rather the 'leaders' of the movement sue in courts, hold rallies, subvert school boards and publish religious tracts on the subject. So its definitly a political movement.

The few short-age creationists that wrote during the 1900 to 1960 period include L. Allen Higley, author of Science and Truth, and a science professor at Wheaton College during the 1930s. The religious backgrounds of those prominent in the creation movement included primarily main-line Protestants, especially Lutherans, Presbyterians, Seventh-Day Adventists and some Baptists (the most liberal of the so-called fundamentalist denominations).

Here is a link to a A Brief History of the Modern American Creation Movement

www.asa3.org...

Some of the More Prominent Early 1900 Creationists,

Harry Rimmer, a Presbyterian minister who had attended Whittier College, He later became part of Riley's World Christian Fundamentalist Association (McIver, 1988, p. 232).

George McCready Price, a Seventh-Day Adventist science teacher who received a BA from Loma Linda College in 1912

www.gospel-herald.com...

John Ambrose Flemming

he wrote many creationist books including "The Intersecting Spheres of Religion and Science, and Evolution or Creation. He was also a long-age creationist and accepted microevolution

Charles Piazzi Smyth

was the Astronomer-Royal of Scotland and a professor at the University of Edinburgh in the late 1800s. Smyth was a major pioneer of the modern pyramidology movement which is still strong today. He is most well known for his mammoth tome entitled Our Inheritance In the Great Pyramid (1877) in which he argued that God directed its construction.

Frank Lewis Marsh was a Seventh-day Adventist (SDA), earned a Ph.D. in botany from the University of Nebraska.

www.interference.com...

Ernest S. Booth was a Seventh-Day Adventists and head of the department of biology at Walla Walla College in the state of Washington. He published Biology-The Story of Life (1950), edited a biology periodical titled The Naturalis.

Byron Nelson, a Lutheran, in 1931 published The Deluge Story in Stone, then After Its Kind in 1932, and Before Abraham in 1948, a creationist book covering anthropology.

Theodore Graebner, a Lutheran who taught at Concordia Theological Seminary in St. Lewis, published Essays in Evolution (1925), Evolution: An Investigation and a Criticism

Harold Clark, a Seventh-Day Adventist, taught biology at SDA colleges for thirty-five years
He published, “Back to creation” “the new Diluvialism” “Fossil, Flood and fire” and many others.

Alfred M. Rehwinkel was a Lutheran and published The Flood (1951) which was close to Price in geological interpretation. www.lccarchives.ca...

Theodore Handrich, a Lutheran high school teacher in Minnesota, wrote Everyday Science for the Christian (1947), and in 1953 Creation-Facts, Theories and Faith.

John Kolz, a Lutheran seminary professor with a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Pittsburgh wrote Genes, Genesis and Evolution among other works.

Paul A. Zimmerman, a chemist and former president of Concordia Lutheran College in Ann Arbor, Michigan was a Lutheran and edited Darwin, Evolution and Creation (1959)

I can go on and on, but it will be to much to post, so please if you want to know more about the “Protestand fundamentalist” group that had contributed in history to the “creationist movement” here is the link.

www.asa3.org...





[edit on 5-7-2005 by marg6043]

[edit on 5-7-2005 by marg6043]