Rod said:

> No Tom, Josephus accepted the 6 day creation and 7th day of rest just like
> most orthodox Jews do today.
>  I can provide specific quotes later.
>
> His understanding of the creation week is similar to YEC today, including
> order of events (sun and moon after the earth) and a global Flood of Noah.
> I can only say that modern science has enabled folks to grasp the 'true'
> meaning of the Bible today but folks like poor Josephus were not able to
> read it correctly-----Rod

Did he also think that the earth and sky were something like the
Houston astrodome?  And what credence should we give
such a reading?

From Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 1.
"INTRODUCTION
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth
did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind
moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when
that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the
darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called
Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening
and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day. But Moses said it was
one day; the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have
promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I
shall put off its exposition till that time. After this, on the second day,
he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other
parts, and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a
crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable
to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording
the advantage of dews. On the third day he appointed the dry land to appear,
with the sea itself round about it; and on the very same day he made the
plants and the seeds to spring out of the earth. On the fourth day he
adorned the heaven with the sun, the moon, and the other stars, and
appointed them their motions and courses, that the vicissitudes of the
seasons might be clearly signified."

As if there is any doubt of this conception, look at Josephus' concept of
Hades, from Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades:
"1. NOW as to Hades, wherein the souls of the of the good things they see,
and rejoice in the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary
to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a
subterraneous region, wherein the light of this world does not shine; from
which circumstance, that in this region the light does not shine, it cannot
be but there must be in it perpetual darkness. This region is allotted as a
place of custody for souls, ill which angels are appointed as guardians to
them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one's
behavior and manners. "

Hades is underground.  Where else could it be in such a cosmology?  We
tee-hee about such naivete now, saying nobody would take that seriously.  Of
course not - *NOW*.

Tracy P. Hamilton

----- Original Message -----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
<Roderick Bernitt>
To: CreationProcessAge forum
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

>
> Tracy you said about Setterfield cDK [He has also made up different kinds
> of time.  Now, really!
>
> Perhaps the universe is 15 billion years old in atomic time, and 6000
> years in dynamical time, or is it vice versa?]
>
> I believe you are correct, Setterfield is attempting to show how atomic
> time in the universe could be a very old clock while the dynamical time
> clock (like pulsar spin rates or planetary orbital revolutions) shows
> 6,000-10,000 years of time IAW the book of Genesis-----Rod

What more can I say?

Tracy P. Hamilton

----- Original Message -----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
<Roderick Bernitt>
To: CreationProcessAge forum
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

>
> Christopher you said about atomic and dynamic time measurements [There is
> no evidence that the two times are
> different from direct observations.]
>
> Christopher I am surprised at this.  I showed you a list sometime ago not
> posted to this newsgroup which clearly demonstrates that much data in our
> solar system could be interpreted as indicating a much younger dynamical
> time for the solar system than the radiometric ages of meteorites allow.
> You must patch and patch to make your position work but the YEC will
> continue to march on-----Rod

You have shown nothing about 2 kinds of time.

Tracy P. Hamilton

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Marc Gibson wrote:
> Christopher,
>
> You wrote...
> >>So you arbitralily decide not to take literally correct 4 legged
> insects, but you arbitralily decide to take 6x24 hours of creation as
> literally correct.<<
>
> It was not arbitrary, for I gave reasons for both from the context of
> scripture itself.

It was, basically you are deciding which extra-biblical knowledge you
use, and which not to use.  You accept that insects have 6 legs, so
you are forced to argue away this on the basis of context, but you
decide not to accept the huge age of the universe, which can be seen
directly at night through a telescope, so you take that part of the
Bible literally.

>
> You also wrote...
> > If charges of bibliolatry, idolatry, and brainlessness continues, I
> > will not dignify it with a response. "Let God be true, and every
> > man a liar" (Rom. 3:4).
> >
> > Marc Gibson
>
> >>Which is no doubt an out of context quote.<<
>
> In the context, Paul is speaking of Jews who had the oracles of God
> but did not believe. Their unbelief in the written revelation did
> not nullify the truth of what God said. This principle would still
> apply to the context of unbelievers in the Bible today. You really
> should not make comments on the Biblical text and context if you are
> not going to take it seriously.
>
> You questioned what kind of faith we are talking about. I'll let
> Paul tell you -- "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of
> God" (Rom. 10:17).
> He also said that the live that he lived in the flesh he live by
> faith in the Son of God (Gal. 2:20). Is it hard for you to maintain
> a straight face when you read this?
>
> Thanks,
> Marc Gibson

Paul didn't have a telescope, or particle accelerator, and knew
nothing of quantum mechanics or relativity, so he didn't know about
the truth of the great age of the universe.

Christopher M. Sharp

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> No Tom, Josephus accepted the 6 day creation and 7th day of rest
> just like most orthodox Jews do today.  I can provide specific
> quotes later.
>
> His understanding of the creation week is similar to YEC today,
> including order of events (sun and moon after the earth) and a
> global Flood of Noah. I can only say that modern science has enabled
> folks to grasp the 'true' meaning of the Bible today but folks like
> poor Josephus were not able to read it correctly-----Rod

Rod,

The Bible says nothing about a global flood.  It does talk about a
universal flood, i.e. perhaps universal from Noah's perspective, or
the author of Genesis, but not global.  Did Noah have penguins, kiwis,
llamas and koalas on the Ark, I think not.  In fact the ice in
Antarctica and Greenland shows clearly there was no gloabl flood a few
1000 years ago.  You can look at the different layers, and go back
over 100,000 years.

The concept of anything being global is purely a modern term, and
can't obviously apply to people who knew nothing of Australia,
S.America etc.

Yet again we see a YEC making Christianity look foolish and
unbelievable, by stating something we know is not true, i.e. a global
flood.

Christopher

Christopher, that talkorigins FAQ by Chris Stasen (if I recall) is biased!
There are over 20,000+ meteorites documented today!  Back in 1991,
talkorigins FAQ admits that about 100 were dated in 1991.  That effort since
1955.  How many have been radiometric dated since then?  Out of the 100
figure from 1991, only about 70 could really be used.

But what is missing?  The rest of the story!  Go get talkorigins to publish
the complete story.  Show *all rejected readings*, include the rejected
readings that were *never published* and also show the radiometric ages,
along with the cosmic ray exposure ages!  Go do this first and then when can
talk truth!

In fact, why don't the evolutionists just publish all the radiometric ages
for all the radiometric dated meteorites along with a table showing their
cosmic ray exposure ages?  Show the time delta in a separate column.

Make that available to the public and show folks how evolutionists have
really dated the 4.6 Gyr old earth.  Market that in your tax supported
public school system rather than the legends of the House of Darwin-----Rod

In Chris' post:

> --- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
>> No Tom, Josephus accepted the 6 day creation and 7th day of rest
>> just like most orthodox Jews do today.  I can provide specific
>> quotes later.
>>
>> His understanding of the creation week is similar to YEC today,
>> including order of events (sun and moon after the earth) and a
>> global Flood of Noah. I can only say that modern science has enabled
>> folks to grasp the 'true' meaning of the Bible today but folks like
>> poor Josephus were not able to read it correctly-----Rod
>
> Rod,
>
> The Bible says nothing about a global flood.  It does talk about a
> universal flood, i.e. perhaps universal from Noah's perspective, or
> the author of Genesis, but not global.

I would imagine you would have to know the earth is
a sphere to call it global, wouldn't you?

[snip]

> The concept of anything being global is purely a modern term, and
> can't obviously apply to people who knew nothing of Australia,
> S.America etc.
>
> Yet again we see a YEC making Christianity look foolish and
> unbelievable, by stating something we know is not true, i.e. a global
> flood.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Tom, I checked out the Hebrew in Hosea 6:2 and yes you are correct, the
Hebrew is 'mayomayim beyom shelishi' = 'two days' and 'the third day' in the
NIV translation.  My transliteration is from Young's Analytical Concordance.
Okay you score a point here but don't be too happy.  Look at the context.
Hosea 5:13-6:2 is a call for Israel to repent and the Lord's promise to heal
and restore them.  Does verse two in Hosea 6 teach that it will take God
billions of years to heal and restore Israel?  I think not.  The passage
could be figurative but also quite literal.  Even if we accept the usage as
figurative, the context demands that the reference be to a very short time
interval for God to heal and restore his people.  I don't think this is
something you would want to use to interpret Genesis 1 because the Hosea
passage could damage the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1.  If anything,
the context of Hosea 6:2 lends support to the interpretation that the 6 days
of the creation week are indeed a very short time span!  As far as I know,
the vast majority of usage in Hebrew of 'yom' combined with the cardinal or
ordinal number refers to a literal day as we know it but not some long
period of time.

In AD 93/94, Josephus published his Antiquities of the Jews.  In Book I,
Chapter I, section 1, it is clear that he accepted a literal 6-day creation
as a Pharisee ('Accordingly Moses says that in just six days the world and
all that is therein was made; and that the seventh day was a rest, and a
release from the labour of such operations;-whence it is that we celebrate a
rest from our labours on that day, and call it the Sabbath; which word
denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.') [1].

Also in Book I, Chapter III, this covers the Flood of Noah.  Sections 2, 5,
and 7 indicate a belief in a global Flood.   Josephus refers to various
other ancient sources that mention the deluge like the version of the priest
Berosus and the Babylonian account.  Josephus does not indicate that the
Hebrews borrowed from the Babylonians but rather that the Babylonians were
writing about the same Flood that Moses did.  The Babylonians wrote from
their own religious perspective that was quite different than the Hebrews.

Evolutionists are distorting the facts of history when they claim the
Biblical records of Creation and the Flood were borrowed from Mesopotamian
sources.  You cannot reconcile the evolution model of man's origin with the
Flood of Noah which features mankind today descended from Noah and his 3
sons.  Because of this, as the February 1999 Scientific American
illustrates, evolutionists must promote the doctrine that the Biblical Flood
account has been borrowed from much earlier sources in Mesopotamia.

WONDERS - Noah's Flood?  Commentary by Philip and Phyllis Morrison about
geologic time, Mediterranean Sea flooding (Black Sea) and Noah's Flood and
Mesopotamian flood legends.  Is the Mediterranean flooding now dated to c.
5650 BC, the source for such flood stories?  Ref:  Scientific American,
February 1999, p.105-107.

Page 107 "As for human witness, several records of deluge myth go back 1,000
years before the Aramaic cuneiform manuscript of 900 B.C. from which the
Genesis text itself comes."

Compare what ICR has to say on this topic -

"The Epic of Gilgamesh has been of interest to Christians ever since its
discovery in the mid-nineteenth century in the ruins of the great library at
Nineveh, with its account of a universal flood with significant parallels to
the Flood of Noah's day...

The Epic of Gilgamesh is contained on twelve large tablets, and since the
original discovery, it has been found on others, as well as having been
translated into other early languages.  The actual tablets date back to
around 650 BC and are obviously not originals since fragments of the flood
story have been found on tablets dated around 2,000 BC.  Linguistic experts
believe that the story was composed well before 2,000 BC...

To those who believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, it
should not be a surprise that God would preserve the true account of the
Flood in the traditions of His people.  The Genesis account was kept pure
and accurate throughout the centuries by the providence of God until it was
finally compiled, edited, and written down by Moses.  The Epic of Gilgamesh,
then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished by peoples
who did not follow the God of the Hebrews." [2]

Folks are going to make up their own mind about such issues.  I have already
decided that OEC interpretations of the Bible are too strained for me.  The
secular humanist position is found in Psalm 14:1.  When it comes to issues
like light-transit-time in the universe and the Biblical record I see only a
few options available -

   a.  Reject the Josephus/Ussher Biblical chronology when
applied to the universe and accept an ancient universe model.  This means
accepting Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and develop a young
earth/ancient universe model based upon relativity.  Such a model could
allow that the solar system may indeed be very young (IAW Biblical
chronology), yet be surrounded by a much more ancient stellar realm.  Russ
Humphreys has been attempting to do this.  The first supernovae would
predate the Fall of Man in Genesis 3.
    b.  Accept an ancient earth/ancient universe model like
the big bang cosmology.  You can throw out the Bible or try and twist and
turn around its plain statements in Genesis chapters 1-11.  Secular
humanists throw out the Bible.  OEC twist and turn.  YEC throw out option b.
    c.  Reject Special Theory of Relativity and argue for
c-decay like Setterfield hypothesis.  Be prepared to apply c-decay
correction factors to light-curves obtained in modern astronomy for
interpreting novae and supernovae as well as other stellar spectra too.  The
first supernovae may predate the Fall of Man in Genesis 3.
    d.  Accept Special Theory of Relativity as applicable
today and back to perhaps creation day 5 in Genesis 1 but modify the theory
based upon an abrupt and rapid stellar formation process operating during
creation day 4.  This could indicate the need for some type of c-decay
correction factors for stellar spectra analysis.  Stars within 6,000 to
10,000 light-years may not need any c-decay correction factors but beyond
this distance, the stars would.  The first supernovae predate the Fall of
Man in Genesis 3.
    e.  The first supernovae took place after the Fall of
Man in Genesis 3 along with the entrance of sin and death on Earth.  This
too requires some type of c-decay light-curve correction factors.

----Rod


References:

1.  Whiston, W., Josephus Complete Works, p. 25, Kregel Publications,
1960.
2.  Frank Lorey, M.A., "THE FLOOD OF NOAH AND THE FLOOD OF GILGAMESH",
ICR (Impact No. 285 March 1997), p. i, vi.

> Christopher, that talkorigins FAQ by Chris Stasen (if I recall) is biased!
> There are over 20,000+ meteorites documented today!  Back in 1991,
> talkorigins FAQ admits that about 100 were dated in 1991.  That effort
> since 1955.  How many have been radiometric dated since then?  Out of the
> 100 figure from 1991, only about 70 could really be used.
>
> But what is missing?  The rest of the story!

I have the feeling a "story" is coming...

> Go get talkorigins to publish
> the complete story.  Show *all rejected readings*, include the rejected
> readings that were *never published* and also show the radiometric ages,
> along with the cosmic ray exposure ages!  Go do this first and then when
> can talk truth!

Pewrhaps you can back this up by bringing up these numerous rejected dates.

Maybe they were rejected for a reason.  I routinely reject data, not
because of prejudice, but because I can tell when the method is
not working as it should.  I see the opposite (exactly what you are
advocating scientists should do) with amazing frequency
in my field.

I am a theoretical chemist.  There is software that is now user friendly,
so that nontheoretical chemists can use it to compute energies,
vibrational frequencies, etc. for comparison with their experiments.
The problem is that they are unable to discriminate, because of a
lack of expertise of *how* the methods work (they know how the
results can be used) some of the danger signs that indicate
convergence failure (usually they catch those), instabilities (rarely
even known about by experimentalists but quite common) and
the accuracy of the answer (some know well, some don't).

Experimentalists routinely reject experimental data when the
machine is not running correctly, or the sample is messed up,
or the purifications step did not work, etc.

You can start with one case.  That will be difficult enough for you.

As a preamble, perhaps you could give in your own words how
radiodating works, what factors introduce errors, and how the
presence of these factors can be tested for.

> In fact, why don't the evolutionists just publish all the radiometric ages
> for all the radiometric dated meteorites along with a table showing their
> cosmic ray exposure ages?  Show the time delta in a separate column.

Do you think geologists date rocks, and then only choose the results
that suit them?  That would be stupid.  Why do the tests at all?

> Make that available to the public and show folks how evolutionists have
> really dated the 4.6 Gyr old earth.  Market that in your tax supported
> public school system rather than the legends of the House of Darwin

Show some education yourself before making statements about what should
be taught in schools.  It takes knowledge of how dating works, and
when it doesn't work, to determine the date of something.

Evidently you think there is a radiodating machine that reads out a number
that should be taken at face value no matter what has happened to the
rock.

Tracy P. Hamilton

> Christopher,
>
> You wrote...
> >>So you arbitralily decide not to take literally correct 4 legged
> insects, but you arbitralily decide to take 6x24 hours of creation as
> literally correct.<<
>
> It was not arbitrary, for I gave reasons for both from the context of
> scripture itself.

Not for the insect, you didn't.  Let me quote the sum total
of your argument:

"The terminology of "going on all fours" is common in scripture to refer to
creeping things. It need not be pressed to indicate the exact number of feet
(four or more) used in the creeping. If a cow or dog lost a leg, or was born
with five legs, it would still be classed as a creature that "goes on all
fours." The passage in Leviticus is distinguishing flying insects from
creeping insects and thus the use of the common terminology for creeping
things."

What context of scripture is here?  All I see is what *YOU* are saying.
That is not sufficient.

Please deal with my message where I discuss this in the context of Lev. 11.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Tracy, have you been reading the material published by John Woodmorrape in
the CEN TJ and ICR publications on radiometric dating methods?  He has
documented material from the 1950s-1980s and updated for the 1990s.

If we really want to discuss facts about dating meteorites for the age of
the solar system, my questions would have to be presented in a clear table
form.  Until that happens, the rest of the story is untold---RJB

Tracy,

You said...
>>Actually, was it not Jesus who offended the Pharisees
and was put to death for violating the laws of the
Sabbath?  Certainly the Pharisees saw it as
improper respect for the law.

The Pharisees problem is that they put following the
letter of the law above all else.  That is not right.
Jesus said so quite clearly.<<

The Pharisees put their human traditions (doctrines and commandments of men)
above the teaching of the revealed law of God (Matt. 15:1-14). Jesus pointed
people to the letter of the law and its authority - "Have ye not read" and
"Not one jot or tittle shall pass away until all is fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18).
We will be judged by the revealed word of Jesus - Jesus said so quite clearly
(Jn. 12:48).

Concerning Lev. 11 and the insects "going on all fours," I will grant you
that the use is limited, but it indicates a common terminology, for there is
no evidence that the Jewish people went bonkers over this horrible
"discrepancy." It was understood in the context it was used. The paragraph of
vv. 20-23 is dealing with only insects and uses a general term for creeping.
Verse 42 is in a paragraph dealing with a variety of things, and therefore a
more specific description of locomotion is necessary. Is this so hard to see?

If you don't like me saying it, consider R. K. Harrison's explanation in the
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (revised), vol. 2, p. 839:

"INSECTS [Heb. seres ha op] (Lev. 11:20f., 23; Dt. 14:19); AV FOWLS THAT
CREEP, CREEPING THING THAT FLIETH, FLYING CREEPING THINGS; NEB TEEMING WINGED
CREATURES. The prescription in Dt. 14:19 prohibited for food 'all winged
insects' as unclean, but the more detailed regulations of Lev. 11:20f. made a
distinction between winged insects going on all fours, i.e., that move like
quadrupeds, and those having 'legs above their feet.' This latter presumably
referred to bending rear legs which were larger and higher than the
corresponding forelegs. Such insects were regarded as suitable for food, and
included species of locusts, of which the order Orthoptera is divided into
more than forty."

If this is not a reasonable resolution for you, then who is the one who
already "knows" the answer? Indeed it is a hard thing to overcome no matter
how sincere the effort.

Marc Gibson

Gentlemen:

Rod QUOTE:
Tom, I checked out the Hebrew in Hosea 6:2 and yes you are correct, the
Hebrew is 'mayomayim beyom shelishi' = 'two days' and 'the third day' in the
NIV translation.  My transliteration is from Young's Analytical Concordance.
Okay you score a point here but don't be too happy.  Look at the context.
Hosea 5:13-6:2 is a call for Israel to repent and the Lord's promise to heal
and restore them.  Does verse two in Hosea 6 teach that it will take God
billions of years to heal and restore Israel?  I think not.  The passage
could be figurative but also quite literal.
UNQUOTE

What does, "The passage could be figurative but also quite literal" mean?  I
think what you really meant to say was, "The passage could be literally
figurative but also quite figuratively literal, except for the portions
which might also be fiterally ligurative."  I believe the original statement
was that *all* combinations of the word "yom" with an ordinal referred to
literal 24-hour days.  Clearly that statement is not true.  BTW, there is
another such occurrence in Zechariah 14:7, where the statement "It shall be
one day" contains the phrase "yom echad," which is identical to the phrase
used in Genesis 1:5--"day one."  I suspect there are probably others, but
there are lots of "yammim" in the Bible and I haven't had time to look at
them all.

My point about the "four-legged insects" and the mustard-seed would be this
...

Scripture makes a statement which can be taken to be true "in some sense."
It's like a lot of other statements in scripture which we understand in
terms of the *context* in which the statement was made.  If you take the
statement out of the context, you will get the wrong message.  I assert that
the *context* of scripture, in the broadest sense, is the *purpose* for
which scripture was written.  If you try to do something with the Bible
which is outside the purpose for which God gave it, you're going to get
nonsense.  Trying to make "scientific" statements out of texts in scripture
is a big mistake for those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
If you insist that "the waters above the sky" is a scientific description of
the hydrogen which God used to make stars, you are going to have to accept
that the statement about four-legged insects and the statement about the
mustard-seed are also scientific statements, and those statements are
obviously, scientifically, nonsense.  I take the same position with regard
to the creation stories (there are at least three of them) in the OT.

All this science/non-science stuff, BTW, was decided in the days of Galileo,
when all the Bible-believing authorities came to the defense of
geo-centrism.  Rod and Marc, you guys need to answer this question:  does
*the Bible say* that the earth goes round the sun, or does *the Bible say*
that the sun goes round the earth?  Which is it?  Please defend your answer
strictly from the Bible, without recourse to any observation of nature.

Another quote from Rod, QUOTE:
I don't think this is
something you would want to use to interpret Genesis 1 because the Hosea
passage could damage the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1.
UNQUOTE

Since I don't take the day-age position, I don't care.

Marc, I want to do some research before responding to your post on Jesus'
statement in Mark 10:6.  I will also, in the process, answer Maurice
Barnett's commentary upon my response to the Open Letter.

Rod, I will also respond to your statements on Job 38.

Meanwhile, you guys go to work on Joshua's long day.

tom

[Rod and Marc, you guys need to answer this question:  does *the Bible say*
that the earth goes round the sun, or does *the Bible say* that the sun goes
round the earth?  Which is it?  Please defend your answer
strictly from the Bible, without recourse to any observation of nature.]

Yes Joshua chapter 10 was used by Martin Luther to argue against Copernicus.
However please remember, that even today when the weather man gives the
local weather forecast on TV, they refer to the time of sunset and sunrise
so one could argue these people believe the sun revolves around the earth.
I suspect similar language is used in scripture to----Rod

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

[Rod and Marc, you guys need to answer this question:  does *the Bible say*
that the earth goes round the sun, or does *the Bible say* that the sun goes
round the earth?  Which is it?  Please defend your answer
strictly from the Bible, without recourse to any observation of nature.]

Yes Joshua chapter 10 was used by Martin Luther to argue against Copernicus.
However please remember, that even today when the weather man gives the
local weather forecast on TV, they refer to the time of sunset and sunrise
so one could argue these people believe the sun revolves around the earth.
I suspect similar language is used in scripture to----Rod

Tom, the context of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is an account of creation from the
heavens thru the earth and their entire *hosts* which teaches a finished or
completed creation.  This is clearly an historical narrative text and
Josephus in AD 90-93 understood that, so do all YEC folks.  So does the
context of Exodus 20:11.  I have stated my position clearly, OEC Bible
interpretation is too strained for me, if you wish to pursue it, feel free
but I personally feel that secular humanist are more logical about science
and the Bible, they just throw it out and I would too if I believed their
stuff---Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

[Rod and Marc, you guys need to answer this question:  does *the Bible say*
that the earth goes round the sun, or does *the Bible say* that the sun goes
round the earth?  Which is it?  Please defend your answer
strictly from the Bible, without recourse to any observation of nature.]

Yes Joshua chapter 10 was used by Martin Luther to argue against Copernicus.
However please remember, that even today when the weather man gives the
local weather forecast on TV, they refer to the time of sunset and sunrise
so one could argue these people believe the sun revolves around the earth.
I suspect similar language is used in scripture to----Rod

I said [I personally feel that secular humanist are more logical about
science and the Bible, they just throw it out]

I am speaking about secular humanists throwing out the Bible.  That is a
more logical position than OEC Bible interpretations of Genesis chapters
1-11 in my opinion---Rod.


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

Tom, the context of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is an account of creation from the
heavens thru the earth and their entire *hosts* which teaches a finished or
completed creation.  This is clearly an historical narrative text and
Josephus in AD 90-93 understood that, so do all YEC folks.  So does the
context of Exodus 20:11.  I have stated my position clearly, OEC Bible
interpretation is too strained for me, if you wish to pursue it, feel free
but I personally feel that secular humanist are more logical about science
and the Bible, they just throw it out and I would too if I believed their
stuff---Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

tom

Tom said:

> Gentlemen:
[snip]

> My point about the "four-legged insects" and the mustard-seed would be
> this
> ...
>
> Scripture makes a statement which can be taken to be true "in some sense."

Like parables.

[snip]

> If you insist that "the waters above the sky" is a scientific description
> of the hydrogen which God used to make stars, you are going to have to
> accept that the statement about four-legged insects and the statement
> about the mustard-seed are also scientific statements, and those
> statements are obviously, scientifically, nonsense.  I take the same
> position with regard to the creation stories (there are at least three of
> them) in the OT.
>
> All this science/non-science stuff, BTW, was decided in the days of
> Galileo, when all the Bible-believing authorities came to the defense of
> geo-centrism.  Rod and Marc, you guys need to answer this question:  does
> *the Bible say* that the earth goes round the sun, or does *the Bible say*
> that the sun goes round the earth?  Which is it?  Please defend your
> answer strictly from the Bible, without recourse to any observation of
> nature.

Even before that, the Old Testament has a earth and sky model kind of like
the astrodome.

Yet the transition to accept a spherical earth was no problem
that I know of.

[snip]

Tracy P. Hamilton

Rod:

Please do not change the subject.  I asked:

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

Respond.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

Tom, the context of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is an account of creation from the
heavens thru the earth and their entire *hosts* which teaches a finished or
completed creation.  This is clearly an historical narrative text and
Josephus in AD 90-93 understood that, so do all YEC folks.  So does the
context of Exodus 20:11.  I have stated my position clearly, OEC Bible
interpretation is too strained for me, if you wish to pursue it, feel free
but I personally feel that secular humanist are more logical about science
and the Bible, they just throw it out and I would too if I believed their
stuff---Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

tom

Tracy, the CEN TJ published an extensive article on the 'firmament' in
Genesis 1.  I suspect from you comments you did not read the report, it was
detailed in analysis of Hebrew and Greek as well as the usage in other
texts.  The CEN TJ showed your position to be a common misconception
(including your earlier quotes from Josephus who had the same problem),
thanks----Rod

Tom said:

> [Rod and Marc, you guys need to answer this question:  does *the Bible
> say* that the earth goes round the sun, or does *the Bible say* that the
> sun goes round the earth?  Which is it?  Please defend your answer
> strictly from the Bible, without recourse to any observation of nature.]

Rod said:

> Yes Joshua chapter 10 was used by Martin Luther to argue against
> Copernicus. However please remember, that even today when the weather man
> gives the local weather forecast on TV, they refer to the time of sunset
> and sunrise so one could argue these people believe the sun revolves
> around the earth.

With the same mouth that also admits that they did not?!!!!
This says a lot about the character of said person.

To be more explicit, Martin Luther got his cosmology from what
the Bible says.  Martin Luther got his understanding strictly
from the Bible, just as Tom requested.  This is additional
evidence of  what people who used the phrase (before the Copernican theory
came about) believed that it meant.

Can it be done - read only the Bible and get a current picture
of the solar system?

Tracy P. Hamilton

[unsupported wishful thinking deleted]

what about how weather folk describe sunset and sunsrise today?  Why not go
after that language----rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

Rod:

Please do not change the subject.  I asked:

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

Respond.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

Tom, the context of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is an account of creation from the
heavens thru the earth and their entire *hosts* which teaches a finished or
completed creation.  This is clearly an historical narrative text and
Josephus in AD 90-93 understood that, so do all YEC folks.  So does the
context of Exodus 20:11.  I have stated my position clearly, OEC Bible
interpretation is too strained for me, if you wish to pursue it, feel free
but I personally feel that secular humanist are more logical about science
and the Bible, they just throw it out and I would too if I believed their
stuff---Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:

[SNIP]

> Folks are going to make up their own mind about such issues.  I have
> already decided that OEC interpretations of the Bible are too
> strained for me.  The secular humanist position is found in Psalm
> 14:1.

Who are the "secular humanists"?  I know a number of Christians and
Jews here in Tucson who accept the great age of the universe based on
the evidence.

> When it comes to issues
> like light-transit-time in the universe and the Biblical record I
> see only a few options available -
>
>     a.  Reject the Josephus/Ussher Biblical chronology when
> applied to the universe and accept an ancient universe model.  This
> means accepting Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and develop
> a young earth/ancient universe model based upon relativity.  Such a
> model could allow that the solar system may indeed be very young
> (IAW Biblical chronology), yet be surrounded by a much more ancient
> stellar realm.  Russ Humphreys has been attempting to do this.  The
> first supernovae would predate the Fall of Man in Genesis 3.

Russ Humphrey's work has been shown to be nonsense.  Check up
http://www.reasons.org and search for his name.  If he had done any
real work, it would have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

>     b.  Accept an ancient earth/ancient universe model like
> the big bang cosmology.  You can throw out the Bible or try and
> twist and turn around its plain statements in Genesis chapters 1-11.
> Secular humanists throw out the Bible.  OEC twist and turn.  YEC
> throw out option b.

As I said above, many of the so called "secular humanists" are
theists.  The Bible is not a science textbook, so cannot be used as
one.  Do you use the Bible to find the specific gravity of iron, or
the melting point of lead?

>     c.  Reject Special Theory of Relativity and argue for
> c-decay like Setterfield hypothesis.  Be prepared to apply c-decay
> correction factors to light-curves obtained in modern astronomy for
> interpreting novae and supernovae as well as other stellar spectra
> too.  The first supernovae may predate the Fall of Man in Genesis 3.

c-decay has been thoroughly refuted, so don't rehash arguments which
are false and waste everybody's time.  The Special (and General)
Theories of Relativity have been verified to a very high accuracy.
In fact GPS uses them.  On what basis can you reject them, let's see
your own theories, who knows, you may win the Nobel Prize!

>     d.  Accept Special Theory of Relativity as applicable
> today and back to perhaps creation day 5 in Genesis 1 but modify
> the theory based upon an abrupt and rapid stellar formation process
> operating during creation day 4.  This could indicate the need for
> some type of c-decay correction factors for stellar spectra
> analysis.  Stars within 6,000 to 10,000 light-years may not need any
> c-decay correction factors but beyond this distance, the stars
> would.  The first supernovae predate the Fall of Man in Genesis 3.

Again, c-decay has been refuted, so don't bring it up.  BTW, what has
the fall of man got to do with supernovae?

>     e.  The first supernovae took place after the Fall of
> Man in Genesis 3 along with the entrance of sin and death on Earth.
> This too requires some type of c-decay light-curve correction
> factors.

Again, what has the fall of man got to do with supernovae?  And
again, c-decay is completely false with no observational or
theoretical support.  Why do you keep on bringing up a false
argument?  Surely, if you claim to be a Christian why do you rehash
falsehoods?

> ----Rod

[SNIP]

Christopher M. Sharp

I recommend for those interested that the definition of secular humanists is
found in Psalm 14:1----Rod

Rod:

QUOTE:
what about how weather folk describe sunset and sunsrise today?  Why not go
after that language----rod
UNQUOTE

Because they don't claim "sunrise/sunset" is a *scientific* term for what
they are describing.  But you do claim that Genesis 1-2 (what about the
other creation accounts?) is scientific.  That's the difference.

Now

Please do not change the subject.  I asked:

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

Respond.

Do you want to discuss the Bible, or Channel 4?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

what about how weather folk describe sunset and sunsrise today?  Why not go
after that language----rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

Rod:

Please do not change the subject.  I asked:

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

Respond.

tom

tom, is Genesis 1:1-2:3 a record of creation that shows the whole *hosts*
are finished and completed?  If the answer is yes, you have your answer.
Also for others who are *theists*, this is not the God of the Bible.  Sounds
more like Cain in Genesis chapter 4.  Cain went off into the land of Nod
(land of wandering)----rod

Rod:

You're not going to answer my question, are you?  I asked, *first*, before
you started trying to distract everybody:

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

You may ask for time to think about it or study the issue ... I don't have
any objection.  But if you can't answer this question, you can't address the
issue, and the only person who is wandering on this matter is you.  I'm
still intent on getting a response from you to this question.  I will
persist until you respond or admit that you are unwilling to respond.  We
are going to stick to the subject.

Marc, you too.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

tom, is Genesis 1:1-2:3 a record of creation that shows the whole *hosts*
are finished and completed?  If the answer is yes, you have your answer.
Also for others who are *theists*, this is not the God of the Bible.  Sounds
more like Cain in Genesis chapter 4.  Cain went off into the land of Nod
(land of wandering)----rod