Alright, we have taken some time off from our last post. This will be a fun one.
A question was brought up to me the other day that I thought would be a good question for the Faith Race. It is relatively a simple question that most kids have asked but few adults can answer. Here it is.
On the Bible timeline where do dinosaurs and cavemen fall?
No shortcut answers allowed!
Dig deep and share the knowledge!
20 comments:
Alright, first my short answer, and then later, I'll post a longer one. First, I am a literal creationionst, meaning I believe the Creation to have happened just as the Bible has described, and in the time frame that is set forth. Thus, I do not believer the world to be billions of years old, as some would have you to believe. I believe the world to be only a few thousand (6) years old. I believe the great flood found in Genesis played a huge factor in disrupting the geological makeup of earth, and thus, have thrown our Scientists into a bit of a frenzy. With that in mind, there is also no evidence that man and dinosaur did not co-exist at the same time, and quite the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence that they did. And, since I'm a literalist, then I believe the day before man was made, animals were created, and thus, had to live at the same time. The word "dinosaur" was not invented until, I believe, the
1800's, so it stands to reason there would no mention of that word in literature or history prior to that point. But, there are however mentions of "large" creatures, some described as "monsters" with "tails like cedar trees" that sweep back and forth. In fact, the oldest dated book in the Bible is Job, and it states, in Job 40:15-19, of a "bohemoth" creature, with a "tail that sweeps like a cedar tree". Now, I'm not sure what he was describing, but I've never seen anything like this. A literal translation of Genesis 1:22
says, "and God created the MONSTERS of the sea". Granted, not sure what He meant, but sounds interesting none the less (not anything I want to meet while on a float in the Gulf). Scripture also describes a "sharp toothed scaled creature" with three "large bone on it's back", known as a leviathan (Job 41). Dont know what it is, but I wouldn't want to meet it in a dark ally. So, with all this, my answer is this: Man did co-exist with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs, like so many other animails each year, went into extension, possibly due to the effects of the flood, but I do not know. And the first caveman: Good ole Adam!
Brad
Good job Brad. I too found similiar information. I'll post more later. Glad to hear from you.
First of all, I think that Brad did a wonderful job relating the beginning of time and the life of dinosaurs. When my friend had originally asked me what my views were on this topic I admit I had to do some searching. I chose to look at the question from the opposite side.
Many point out that there can be no real dinosaurs because there is no mention of it in the Bible. This is rather a strict constructionist view of the Bible in my opinion. The Bible is not a scientific treatise on the development of every animal on earth. Rather the Bible is solely focused on mans relationship with God. Therefore the idea that there can be no dinosaurs simply because they are not mentioned is about as rational as saying there is no such thing as paintball, simply because it is not mentioned in the Bible. Being false because of omission is not necessarily a good argument in my eyes, especially when you take the historical and fossil record in combination with the different mention of creatures in the Bible.
Other than that, I agree with Brad’s answer about dinosaurs. However……
When we begin to talk about literal creationism, I begin to drift. I by no means think the earth is a few thousand years old. If you had to put my ideas into a specific camp it would be the Day-Age Creationism camp. This basically means that I think the first few days could not be counted as 24 hours. They may have been as long as a million years for all I know (or anyone else for that matter). I believe we can count the earth as several million, if not a billion years old.
There are several specific things that point to this in my opinion:
1. The sun was not even around during the first day. It was not around until the 4th day. The absence of the sun itself points to the impossibility of defining a 24 hour time span.
2. Many of the early church fathers were convinced that the earth was much more than 6000 years old.
3. The use of the Hebrew word “yom” is disputable as to the specific meaning. “Yom” can mean a day, several hours, sunrise to sunset, or an undefined period of time. Also, God opens and closes each day in his depiction creation. However, the 7th day is never closed.
4. The use of the Hebrew word “boger” as morning, sunrise, or dawning; and the use of the Hebrew word “ereb” as evening, sunset, night, or ending of day. I bring these words up because they are used repeatedly in the Torah. They are not always depicting a specific period of time. A good example of this can be found in Psalm 90:6
a. “In the morning the grass flourishes, and sprouts anew; towards the evening it fades and withers away.” I do not think this is to mean that grass grows and dies all in one day, but rather the use of the words describes a much longer period of time.
5. The Bible mentions the law of God proclaimed in a thousand generations. Even if a generation was only 20 years, that points to 20,000 years.
6. This is my favorite though! The Heavens declare His majesty. In this case we can take that as a literal measurement of time. Scientists have proven the sun and other stars to be literally billions of years old. We also know the distance light travels in a year; hence the name “light year”. When we view stars that are millions of light years away, we are viewing light that left those star millions of years ago. This points to creation being much older than a few thousand years. Otherwise we would only be seeing a dark sky at night…well, I guess we would see those stars which are only a few thousand light years away. According to Rich Deem, an evangelical Christian whose mission is to those in the scientific community that do not believe in God, “If one claims that the universe is 6000 years old, he or she must state that God created that light from these distant stars in transit less than 6000 light years from earth.”
7. We also have artifact from different culture depicting celestial events that we know to only occur every so many years. Some of the events that were recorded by these ancient people have been proven to only occur every 12-15 thousand years. This means they must have been recorded during that time span.
Again, I would like to point out that not everything that the Day-Age Camp believes, I believe. It just happens to be the one that fits my ideas the best. I find none of the above reasons to be neither against scripture, nor in defiance to anything the Bible mentions. Much of the ideas that I could not put into words I got from Rich Deem and his research on Day-Age Creationism.
Russ mentioned to me that there is the possibility that God created the earth with “history attached”. Could God do that? Certainly. He is God. He can do anything. However, I also choose to think that God gave us a rational mind through which to improve our lives and impact others. That is on what basis I have tried to look at this question of creationism that often accompanies the topic of dinosaurs and creation on man.
Sorry if I got off topic. Happens to the best of us! Good conversation!
Wow! Brandon you have obviously done your homework. Nice work. Two points before I begin.
1. Adrian Rogers wrote that the Bible is shallow enough for a child to drink from its waters yet so deep that the most knowledgeable scholar cannot touch bottom.
POINT: We will never solidify this question this side of glory.
2. My mother used to warn me not to “argue about how many angels can stand on the head of a needle.”
POINT: I think she was telling me to be careful when arguing/discussing religion and not argue over things that don’t really matter in the big picture.
However, that being said, this blog was formed for moments such as this.
Here are my thoughts:
1. I believe that dinosaurs did roam the earth with man. As Brad pointed out, Job speaks very clearly of this point. In the descriptions around chapter 40 of the beasts, it is God that is doing the description.
2. I further agree with Brandon that just because the Bible doesn’t mention something does not mean it is not true.
3. I believe cavemen did exist. However, it is perfectly within my realm of belief that caveman was not an evolutionary predecessor of Adam but in fact was a separate being than man or Adam. You have heard that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck then it is a duck. Well that may be true unless you are say…the Creator of the Universe that made something from nothing!
4. I believe the Earth to be a bit older than 6,000 years but less than a million or certainly a billion. Why? Gut feeling mostly. Being a math person the number of a million or a billion is astronomical when talking of time.
5. Here is my reasoning for #4. How is the age of anything determined? You go back to the day it was born and subtract the year from the current year. No problem with that. Obviously that doesn’t work with our situation. However, scientists do use carbon dating or radiation dating. In a nutshell, the scientist predicts the age of something based on how much carbon had decayed. They then extrapolate the data in a linear model to predict the age. In other words, they look at how it has decayed and predict the time the sample has taken to decay. Here is the problem with that. Carbonradio dating has been around for less than 100 years. It is a HUGE extrapolation to predict how an element or anything will react over a billion years based on the observations of only a small amount of time. For instance, suppose a ball is rolling down an incline. In some weird way we can measure the speed of the ball for 1 cm. We then use extrapolation to determine the speed 100 yards later. It would be very difficult. However, where my ball example falls apart is that it is theoretically possible given the fact that the deacceleration due to gravity and fraction is fairly linear. Meaning, as the ball goes farther it makes sense that it will proportionally slow down. Scientists plot the decay of carbon as being a linear decline over millions of years. How do we know that? It is an extrapolated assumption. It may not be a linear proportion. For example, do eggs rot linearly? Meaning do they make a steady decline to nothing? Not the ones in my fridge. If I set an egg on the counter it may take a while before it starts stinking. However, once it starts, it really starts stinking. In other words, the decay speeds up. Suppose we kept up with the days of the month based upon the stinkyness (decay) of eggs. It wouldn’t be very accurate. In my simple mind, I see the same problem with carbon dating. Remember, God created the universe from nothing. Let’s move along.
6. There was light after the first day. The sun was created on the 4th day.
7. Many of the early church fathers thought the world was flat.
8. Brandon, I have to argue with your most favorite part. Have scientist actually proven that the sun and stars are billions of years old or do they theorize that the sun and stars are billions of years old. How can things be proven? Eyewitness account. The experiment can be repeated. Physical evidence examined against a proven standard. Physical evidence examined.
9. Again, I fade on the light issue. Just because we see light from a star doesn’t mean the star is millions of light years away. All light that we see is not millions of years old. Light travels at a constant speed but that doesn’t tell you the distance. The speed of the light is only one variable in the D=r*t formula. We have to have two variables to solve for the third. To determine the time we use the formula t=D/r where r is the speed of light. We have to know the distance the star (or light source) is from the point of reference in order to determine the time (age) that the light has been traveling. There is really no way of knowing how long the light we now see has been traveling.
OK, got to stop here. My head is killing me! Thanks Brandon. By the way, how many angels can stand on the head of a needle?
This is excellent! By far my favorite topic, no comparison! My brain has been in overdrive waiting on the response! I love it!
I also knew you would break out a math equation before this was all over. I should have paid more attention to Mrs. McCoy!
I would also like to point out a quick belief of mine. God can do anything he chooses! Period. Full stop. No question. God may have created the earth while playing table tennis with an angel and eating a moon pie and drinking an R.C. Cola (one of his better creations I think!) We can only go the Word he has given us, and our logic (which is pretty limited in His eyes I bet).
So….
Sure, we can point to the fact that we have a limited timeframe through which to observe certain physical characteristics on the earth. The carbon dating argument is well thought out. “How do we know for sure that the half life of these elements is constant when we have only been able to observe them for a short period of time?” There is no way to refute that. However, the opposite has to be true also. If you believe that carbon dating may sometime in the future lead scientist to believe that the earth is much younger than they currently do, then you must also believe that they could discover technology that points to the earth being much older than they currently do.
With the light years idea, I still believe that is a pretty good argument. While I know we can not measure for sure the distance of one star from the earth, or the amount of time it takes light to reach us, most scientific types agree on the use of light years to determine the distance of celestial objects from one another. You used the word constant when defining the speed of light. You can have the same argument used against light years I suppose. How do we know light travels at a constant speed? We have only been able to measure it for a limited amount of time? Could it change in different circumstances?
I think what I am trying to say, is that at some point you have to have some constants. I accept carbon dating, light years, and half-lifes of elements as constants. In the future we may be proven wrong, but for now, I think the best argument based on the technology/intelligence/rational/scripture we have points to the earth being extremely old. Much more so than thousands of years.
You also mauled my church fathers argument! I am very aware of some of the shortcomings of early Church thinkers in some areas. However, I am also aware of the several pivotal ideas they got right. Ideas that, had they not been corrected would have changed our faith drastically. Take the Aryan Heresy. Athenasius took it upon himself to point out that Christ was not “begotten” as Arius believed. Imagine how our faith would have been different if that would have slipped through the filters. My point on this topic is that the early church fathers made some mistakes in secular matters, but we had better hope that they didn’t make many in spiritual matters.
Fun, fun. I guess this makes all of us Bible nerds!
Yes, I have had fun with this one also. Yes you are correct. Carbon dating and the such is probably (likely) much more reliable than I made it out to be.
The point that we definitely agree upon, and I knew going into this discusssion, is that God can do whatever He wishes.
The church fathers did get a lot correct and they were a lot closer to actual events (speaking of the life of Christ) than we are.
Good stuff. We are Bible nerds. We'll take that as a complement won't we? We've been called worse.
Thanks for stirring up the gray matter.
Wow, my brain is sore, and all I've done is read everyone's blogs. Brandon, I understand your rationale, and certainly know there is much "scientific" evidence that points toward certain directions. My problem is when we make these scientific hypothesis into scientific fact. Truth is, the dating methods we use are all flawed, at least to an extent. Even if we can be accurate, up to + or - 1/100 of a percent, you spread that over thousands, or possibly millions of years, and your accuracy can still be way off the mark. Ultimately, I'm not that worried how old the earth is, just that I use the time the Lord has given me to be here for the furthering of His Kingdom. My reasoning behind being a literalist with Scripture, and yes, even with creationism, is that for me to refute it, I have to try and align man's scientific knowledge with God's infinite knowledge. And I just cant bring the two into the same picture. God is not bound by any scientific laws, and certainly works outside the realm of our thinking and understanding. For me, it's like trying to put together a puzzle that you don't have all the pieces to: You can put certain things together, but you still haven't gotten the full picture. And I'm pretty sure I can make a good argument that, at least, cavewomen still exist. Anyone remember Janet Reno? Sorry, that was in poor taste. Not poor enought for me to delete it, but poor none the less.
Brad
I found a good link to all I was trying to say in my last blog. It's lengthy in reading, yet it gives a good explanation to a 6000 year earth.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth
Brad
Janet Reno...
That breaks me down!
Interesting link!
Brad, I read the website you suggested. Hmmmmm. In his conclusion he wrote:
“When we start our thinking with God’s Word, we see that the world is about 6,000 years old. When we rely on man’s fallible (and often demonstrably false) dating methods, we can get a confusing range of ages from a few thousand to billions of years, though the vast majority of methods do not give dates even close to billions.”
Sorry but I can’t buy that at all. He makes his supposition not on God’s Word but on some kind of weird math that I can’t understand logically…and I have a math degree! From what I can understand he seems to be taking the first 5 days of creation as an absolute literal time (we know from the Bible that this time frame may literally be 5 days or some other length of time.) I follow the genealogy from Adam to Abraham and from Abraham to Adam equaling around 6,000 years. However, he totally states “the first 5 days are negligible.” They are only negligible is they are taken to be literal constants on the time spectrum. My argument against carbon dating remains here also. He/we assume that God has to do everything on some linear time frame where everything must be equal and constant. Who says one day has to equal 24 hours for God? Day 1 could be 24 hours, Day 2 could be 5 weeks, Day 3 could be 10,000 years. We are governed by the laws of physics while the laws of physics are governed by God. His time argument completely falls apart for me.
In my argument against a vastly old earth I argued similarly to his argument that who really knows how accurate carbon dating is. He stated, “Radiometric dates, on the other hand, have been shown to be wildly in error.” OK, that is not entirely true either. While radiometric dating may not be completely accurate it cannot be ruled completely inaccurate either.
For me, his argument sinks to the bottom of the ocean with, “Will you trust what an all-knowing God says on the subject or will you trust imperfect man’s assumptions and imaginations about the past that regularly are changing?” That statement borders on blasphemy. He is implying that his THEORY is what God says on the subject. He has proven nowhere that what he is trying to prove is what God said.
Bottom Line: I’m still somewhere in between. 6,000 years—too young for me. 1 million years-1 billion years—too old for me. Proof? I have none. Just my supposition.
Sorry I've been absent. Moving and getting settled has been rather time consuming. However, I do want to comment on this subject as I have done a lot of study in this area.
First, it obvious that an animal existed which we now call a dinosaur. Since their seems to be no reason to interpret the creation story any other way than as it is written, therefore scripture teaches that dinosaurs and man existed together both being created on day 6. As a matter of fact, there are many cave drawings which show animals like birds, buffalo and deer right next to a drawing of what can only be understood to be a dino.
The real question here though is the irreconcilable problem of what God's Word says about how we came to be and what man's theory is as to how we came to be. There are serious doctrinal problems with things like "Day Age Theory", "Gap Theory" and the idea of "Created Age". If you want the detailed doctrinal or interpretive reasons go to... www.eyeswideopenministry.blogspot.com
and then click on "Genesis Fact" under the post listing.
In brief, the issue of going outside of a literal interpretation of the creation story is the one of sin and death. We understand that sin came before death. Since we know because of all the genealogies that Adam lived approx. 6,000 years ago, and that according to scripture (1 Cor. 15:21,22 & 45)it was his disobedience that brought brought the punishment for sin (death) upon us. If death was with us before Adam came to be then why was his sin so special and why did Jesus have to die on the cross to reclaim something Adam never lost as was stated in vs. 45. If you go read the above blog you will see that all these so called theories of man do not square with scripture or logic. It's one of the things I so love about God's Word. It doesn't really lend itself to drastic reinterpretations. Man's theories change, (example Newtons understanding of gravity was set on its head by Einstein) and there are countless example of where science has changed what it previously assumed was fact. Through it all God's Word has remained constant. Why. Because it IS truth.
God Bless,
Scott
Not to beat a dead horse….or at least a dying one…but….
When I posted the above ideas about the age of the earth and its relation to God’s creation of everything (literally everything), I should have more strongly emphasized that the Day-Age group of thoughts is where I find the most ideas that coincide with what I believe. However, even that group of ideas has some inconsistencies. It just happens to be the one of the closest to what I believe is a good interpretation of events occurring in Genesis.
I also think that having anything outside of the “6000 year” view of the age of the earth leaves a person open to being looked upon as a liberal in reference to how they interpret the Bible. I am far from that. I literally believe each word of the Bible is true. However, it is the unspoken areas where I find myself looking for explanation. Part of this reason comes from the ideas that I DO think that science and God’s word go hand in hand. We trust science to cure us, improve our lives, make our lives easier, and keep us healthy, but when it comes to helping us explain something that is not really against scripture, we discard it as an “imperfect invention of man.”
I think that science really helps us prove the existence of God and His greatness. I think that it gives us many clues as to how He went about doing things. Do I think it will ever allow us to fully understand God? Not a chance! However, I think God allowed us science to help us along our way towards Him. That is why I choose to look at the scientific evidence we have about the earth and lend it great credibility. Also, I do not think the above point’s conflict with scripture. That is probably the main reason I have this view of the earths age. If it did, I would have to rethink things.
A couple of points:
Many day-age people believe in evolution. I do not.
If evolution is not true, then the sin=death argument above doesn’t hinder the ideas I posted above. I do believe that Adam was the first man/first sinner/cause of death. I just think the time frame we have of the events occurring before Adam (which is what I was referring to in my earlier posts) is a little longer than we think.
Glad you got moved in well Scott. Guys, if any of this has not made sense, I am on flu medicine. Forgive me. Don’t get too close to my post. I don’t want you to get sick!
This is good stuff!
Brandon: Since I know you as more than a blog member I can say without question you are truly a man of God. I do not believe your statements go against the written Word of God any more than Scott's, Brad's, or mine. Take heart and keep hammering.
Bottom line: There is no "proof" on this issue. Sorry, neither argument can be proven. Both can certainly be theorized. Not even an inkling of a problem for me to believe God created everything in 6 days. Nor do I have a problem believing that God CHOSE to make a day much longer than 24 hours.
I believe the Bible to be literal. However, do you believe a Proverb to be a law? Proverbs in the Bible are general statements when generally applied yield general results. They are not promises nor laws. Do you take them literally all the time? I don't but I understand the context.
How about this one for thought? Why is a day 24 hours? Did God need 24 hours to finish His work? Could he just not get it all done in 23? Did he have somewhere to go on the 25th? Remember, he SPOKE things into creation. He didn’t need the 24 hour day any more than he needed the rest because of His exhaustion. Both of these are models for us.
The arguments that a day has to be a literal 24 hours are no stronger than one who says that a day can be 24,000 years. God is not bound by time. We must not forget God is not controlled by time. Does anyone know how long it took for morning and evening to happen? We assume that it is consistent with today’s day. There have been many calendars that have come and gone.
God creates the Earth and all its contents in 6 days. No problem with that.
God creates the Earth and all its contents in 6 “days” that = 6 million years. No problem with that either.
Doesn’t matter a great deal to me. I’m planning to spend eternity on God’s timeline.
By the way, how long is eternity? Would you hope that it is closer to 6 literal days or 6 “million year” days?
Hey Coach, I agree this stuff is great. Let me offer one thing that might help with respect to religion and science. It is important to distinguish between the two fields of science. Observable Science & Historical Science. One of the reasons so many fall prey to believing what the historical scientist claim about the age of the earth and evolution is because of the amazing discoveries of the operational scientist. Operational science is what was able to get us to the moon or cure diseases. The facts can be observed, tested and retested to reach a result. Historical science is not like that at all. It has in no way proven the age of the earth. For example, we can't prove that the Ceaser's Coptic Wars actually took place because we can't observe them in real time. We might find artifact that suggest they happened but it is still speculation. We might test the artifact to determine their age but we have to make assumptions about the environment at that time and since to do the test. You see,Historical science involves presuppositions. Things we already believe to be true and that we consider when we look back into time and try to determine what really happened. Ask 5 different professors with 5 different backgrounds what caused the civil war and your likely to get 5 different answers. Ask 5 anthropologist to interpret the bones of a specific dig and your likely to get 5 different answers. Why, because they all come to the table with different pre-supposed ideas and those presuppositions affect their judgment. Ask 5 operational scientist how far the earth is from the moon and they will all tell you the same approx answer. Why, they can see it and measure it and test it and repeat it. That is what we general think science does, but the science that tells you how old the earth is isn't like that at all. Don't fall into the trap of believing that one has to ignore "real" science if one wants to literally believe in the story of creation.
It is important to also note that while man cannot prove the age of earth to be 10,000 or 10 million years old, neither can we "prove" that the earth is only appox. 6,000 yrs old and was created in 6 days. We were not their to see it, however we do know someone who was and he gave us His Word as proof. There is one thing we do have on our side with respect to facts. Things we can observe that if added up scientifically would lead to the logical conclusion that the earth is very young. Sea Salt, Population, Moon distance, Helium loss in rocks, existence of comets, and many many more. It is also important to note here that their are many scientist from all fields of study who believe the earth is young. They just don't get the publicity. There are also two differing views of the age of the earth and its formation in geology. One view is called uniformitarianism and means that the formation of the earth are formed by slow process that we see everyday. The other is called catastrophism which is a rapidly growing belief that most of the large geological formation were formed in catastrophic ways, for example, Mt. St. Helen formed a canyon in 3 days that is 1/40th the size of the grand canyon. My point here is to say there is no reason to feel that if you believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old as scripture would suggest you must turn a blind eye to science. It's not true because the science is not there to prove otherwise.
God Bless,
Scott
This response not check for error, I got to go...
Cont of previous post. I'm too long winded :)
When I discovered that through research for a paper on creationism it floored me. For me believing the science as a young man was one of the things that lead me to walk away from the church. I wasn't sure I could believe because I was being taught that science was proving scripture was not true. You see the problem is if we say one needs not believe that Genesis 1 is literally true then we have not logical agreement against someone who then says John 3 is not literally true. We have then open a pandora's box that we can't close. Our logic lead others to the conclusion the we just believe on Blind Faith. When in reality it is the one who believe in man's theories who is using Blind Faith and at the proper time God will reveal their error just like he says in 1 Cor. 1:19 says.
Great argument!
As is the purpose of this blog, I have been doing a lot of thinking in regards to many of the comments made in previous postings. Thanks to this line of questions and responses, I have read Genesis with an intensity that I have never had before. I actually look verse to verse instead of scanning through slow parts of the book. I have hit up friends, family members, pastors, and church staff in attempt to solidify my ideas on certain issues. I have looked into the original Hebrew, read commentaries, and even talked to a person very intimate with scientific issues in order to direct my research. Long story short, these debates and exchange of ideas are great for the growth of my day to day spiritual growth. They force me to put much more time into the study of God’s word than I normally would. I am just being honest.
A great point that Scott made in regards to literally accepting all scripture really got my attention. It got me looking into how literally I actually do take scripture and whether or not I twist ideas God puts forth in the Bible to fit ideas that I have or am comfortable with. I came to several conclusions that have opened my eyes in regards to my daily study of the Bible and even my practices in worship.
I would just like to point out that at least one person who post on this blog is getting a ton out of it, as I am sure several more are also. Even though I still think the Earth is billions of years old, this entire conversation has gotten me seeing God’s word in ways that are very new to me!
Gracias seňors!
Yall make my brain hurt! Alright, I'm going to lay out exactly what I believe, and I think I can both Biblically and Scientifically prove every bit of this: At some point and time in the past, somewhere between 6000 years ago and 1 billion years ago, God created the heavens and the earth. Somewhere in that time period, God made dinosaurs, and also man. It is possible that the two lived together in peaceful harmony, but then again, they may have lived at completely separate times. I'm pretty sure that the Flintstones and Captain Caveman are not literal/historical figures, so much of my beliefs from my early days, quite possibly, are flawed. I also believe that the Bible is 100% accurate, trustworth, true, and breathed from God. I can't quite find chapter and verse as to the date and time of creation (I wonder if it is in the Apocrapha somewhere), so again, I'll just go back to the fact that it is somewhere between 1 billion years ago and 6000 years ago (although I guess it could be even longer ago than that). Math was a device created by the Devil to cause me much grief and heartache during my schooling days, as was the various aspects and branches of the Science field. Therefore, I refuse to factor either of these into my thinking, simply because it might make me cry, and conger up very uncomfortable feelings within me. Now, that's my doggone story, I'm sticking to it, and dare a single one of you to try and prove me wrong!
To All,
Well said.
I know I have said this before but do you remember what Paul did many times when going into each town? He often went to the church. Then what happened. He debated. Then he usually got ran out of town, caused a controversy, got stoned, someone got beat up, etc. In one place I remember he went to Solomon’s Portico. In my simple mind I visualize that as a porch of the temple. While I know the era to be wrong, I can see Paul sitting in his rocking chair on the porch hashing out theology. To me, that is what this blog should be about (well, with the exception of the beatings). I find great pleasure in debating with you guys. It causes me to defend my position, which if I can’t do among the brethren, how can I do it among the world. Thanks for the challenge.
Just a quick note: My last post was all in fun!
Post a Comment