> >>
> >>A year in Jupiter isnāt the same as a year on Earth, if one defines a year
> >>as one complete rotation of a planet around the sun. So we can be on
> >>Jupiter speaking about a year while on earth time we are talking about tens
> >>of years.
> >>
> >
> >Let us define the year as the tick on a personal watch of
> >snip...
> >
> >This is not enough to sneeze at literally less than 1 tenth of a second
> >difference in an entire year. How does this solve your problem?
> >
> >The difference between the year you measure on your watch and the one I
> >measure on mine can't even be measured on a personal watch. They aren't
> >accurate enough.
> >
> >snip...
Thanks for the computations and you have helped a lot in making my case.
The first five chapters of Genesis were dictated from the beginning of
the Universe perspective. So the 15+ billions of years it took to get
to what it is today are contained in the six days of Genesis.
As your calculations proved, if I view time from today towards the big
bang and view time forward from the big bang it will appear as one event
with no difference whatsoever.
> >
> >But revelations 20:3-15 says nothing about lions and lambs living
> >peacefully together. How do you know that the Isaiah reference refers to
> >the 1000 years? That appears to me to be an assumption. and an assumption
> >violated by Scripture itself. Here is part of the passage of Isaiah. It
> >starts by saying that it is referring to the creation of a new heaven and a
> >new earth. And this is clearly parallel to Rev 21 1. Isaiah
> >
> >17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall
> >not be remembered, nor come into mind.
> >. . .
> >25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw
> >like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt
> >nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
> >
Sorry this happen when ones writes pass midnight. The passage I meant
to point out was Isaiah 11:1-16 which describes the reign of the
messiah.
Isa. 11:1-10 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,
and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. And the spirit of the LORD
shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit
of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the
LORD; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD:
and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove
after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge
the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he
shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of
his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the
girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf
also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the
kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a
little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed;
their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw
like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They
shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall
be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."
God doesn't change. He remains the same and all of the things have been
declared and done before the earth was created.
So we have the same situation before and after the new earth. Based on
these two descriptions I base my belief that before the fall of man, the
earth was like it is described in Isaiah.
> >
> >I think the entire vegetarian/carnivore issue falls in the realm of the
> >freedom of the believer. If one believes that vegetables are what should
> >be eaten, it is of no concern. I know some fine Christians who eat no meat
> >and other who are carnivorous. My son is a vegetarian: I love my steak.
> >So, I don't think that what we eat is really all that important.
> >
It isn't until after the flood that God commands man to eat animal
flesh. Isn't that interesting?
Gen. 9:2 "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every
beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth
upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are
they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;
even as the green herb have I given you all things."
> snip...
> >"On the surface were seven or eight circular depressions, about 4 metres
> >across and 0.5 metre deep. It seems certain that these were the
> >foundations of dome-shaped huts, which were in use in historic times in
> >Tasmania. These huts were constructed from a framework of pliable branches
> >such as tea-tree stems, thatched with bark, grass or turf, and lined inside
> >with skins, bark or feathers." ~ Josephine Flood, "The Archeology of the
> >Dreamtime, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 180
> >
Come on Glenn. Huts and tents are one and the same now?
> >OK, then try the one 200 kyr ago at lazaret cave and elsewhere
> >
> > "There are a number of candidates for Preneandertal walls constructed of
> >posts and perishable materials. The best known of these was part of a Riss
> >habitation structure at Lazaret Cave. Despite Villa's reservations,
> >artefact and charcoal distributions support the interpretation of a
> >barrier existing along the line of postholes at Lazaret, separating
> >intensely used areas from little used areas. Similar rock features
> >surrounding voids have been found at Lunel-Viel and Organac III where they
> >were interpreted as pole supports for walls." ~ Brian Hayden "The Cultural
> >Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146,
> >p. 132
> >
> >They believe that the neanderthals built a wall of hide.
Well at last, it is belief what its all about, isn't? I believe Genesis
and you believe Hayden.
> >
> >Not all tents around the world are built in the same manner as the bedoin
> >tents of North Africa and Middle East.
> >
But a tent is portable. When we begin speaking about huts, bricks, 45
inches depressions on the earth, thatching and the rest, we're not
talking tents anymore. At least not in my opinion or the Hebrew word
used in Genesis.
> >
> >I would point out that the term all flesh can be limited in use. It can
> >ONLY refer to man in Genesis 6:13 "And God said unto Noah, The end of all
> >flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through
> >them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."
> >
> >So, if all flesh in the above refers to all animals, why are the animals
> >blamed with filling the earth with violence? 'the earth is filled with
> >violence through them..." So, the kitty cats are partly responsible for the
> >flood? NO. The flood was a judgement on man, man had filled the earth with
> >violence, not the kitty cats.
> >
It seems that you forget creation was cursed because of Adam. It's
still cursed until the millennium reign of the messiah.
To use your evolutionary belief, if all comes from the ground and the
ground is cursed then anything that comes from the ground is going to be
cursed because the main ingredient is so.
> >
> >I don't think the flood was in Mesopotamia. It is a site that does not
> >match the description of the flood.
> >
Well Glenn, where was the garden of Eden located at? In which direction
were Adam and Eve expelled to?
> >>
> >>With the aid of technology today yes I heard gun blasts from Baghdad. :)
> >
> >Agreed, but answer the question in the context of the technology of the
> >Hebrews. You wanted us to get a rabbi to talk about the genealogies
> >because we were inserting modern ideas into the Hebrew. I ask the question
> >again. Is not the Job 37:3 a limited use of the term 'under all the
> >heavens'?>
Well no. If one reads the description of Jesus return it states that in
an instant a loud horn will sound and all eyes will see him, yet He
isn't moving about the planet.
The writer didn't know about satellite technology but today this scene
isn't that far fetched.
> >>
> >>But how many trees have been removed from the Mississippi shores?
> >
> >I don't fully understand this question.
> >
I mean, European man have been around there for at least 300 years.
What type of shore did the river had before these men came into the
scene? I know what the Amazon shore looks like where it's virgin. But
where man lives, it looks totally different.
> >
> >Why? Where in the Bible does it say that the land looked different? What I
> >am doing with this is trying to get you to realize how many non-biblical
> >assumptions go into the YEC/global flood framework. What Christians have
> >done is to allow the belief in a global flood turn the deductions into
> >proven facts. Yes, if there was a global flood, the preflood earth would
> >have looked quite different. But if there wasn't, then it might not have.
> >
What I meant was the shore of the Msspp river. Did it have trees or
tall vegetation close by or not. These do affect the evidence of
floods.
Again I point to my experiences in the Amazon with it's yearly
flooding. In many occasions the river builds islands, reformat shores,
create lakes, remove islands (with tall green trees on them). After
spending time there one get this feeling that the river is alive and
moves about without any regard.
I guess after years of looking at labeled items, one develops a habit of
labeling people. I have written more than once before, and keep on
writing about it, the 6 days of creation aren't 24 hour periods like you
like to paint them but rather the whole life of the universe. Now if you
insist on labeling me a 'YEC' do so but it isn't honest.
Furthermore the Hebrew word used to describe day in Gen 1 means 'heat'
no "one full earth rotation around it's axis". For someone who dices
and slices words such as flesh, earth, flood and tents how come the same
isn't practiced with day?
> > Have you ever seen a real cedar tree in Lebanon? Yet they were
> >>quite famous in antiquity and were even used to build Solomonās first
> >>temple. The Scriptures mention that one could smell their forests in
> >>Jerusalem, but not so today.
> >
> >What does this have to do with lightning under the whole heavens. No where
> >does the scripture say that we could smell the cedars of Lebanon under the
> >whole heaven. We are discussing the use of a term not how far the
> >fragrance of trees can be blown.
What it has to do is with the land being transformed. A flight over
Lebanon and one sees a large sandy looking piece of land with some green
speckles here or there. This didn't look like that 3500 years ago. But
I see that you understood that I mean the continents moved or something
like that. I didn't mean the land masses changed. But something in the
environment did change because the life span of post-flood humans (as
recorded in Genesis) dropped like a brick in a bucket of water.
> >I like it. But there is absolutely nothing to require the usage of this
> >with the advent of anatomically modern men when H. erectus also behaved
> >humanly, built a village, carved a venus figurine etc. It very well might
> >mean that 'not quite human' creature was Australopithecus, or even a chimp.
> >
Never a chimp!!
Best Regards,
Dario