> Ian
> Whoever taught you did not do a very good job.
>
> (DAVE 6/3) Ian: By saying "taught", you are implying some sort of finality
> - I am no where near this point - I am learning about it all the time, and
> include you and some others here as my "teachers". You are doing a very
> good job, don't be so hard on yourself.
>
> Ian
> I am
> on the side that says there are errors in the Bible. I thought you were on
> the inerrant side.
>
> (DAVE 6/3) Ian: I am.
>
> Ian
> If day does not mean day, then what in the hell does it
> mean?
>
> (DAVE 6/3) Ian: I didn't say it doesn't mean "day" - I said that the
> implications of the meaning of "day" were in question. If you are an
> errantist, where is the error in this account? What exactly are you saying
> to me - that the world wasn't created; wasn't created in a 24-hour time
> period; or wasn't created over a longer period of which a "day" could imply?
> Which is it? Please tell me how you know. Because I can honestly tell you
> I don't know "what in the hell" it means.
>
> Ian
> Wouldn't your God write it or have it written so that it can be
> undestood?
>
> (DAVE 6/3) Ian: One would think so, but this doesn't necessarily have to
> be the case. As well, who's to say we won't be able to understand it at
> some point? After all, as many of you say, science will find everything out
> in time...
>
> Ian
> If you are you equating yourself to your two year old son, you're
> not the only one.
>
> (DAVE 6/3) Ian: Not exactly. I was equating mankind's lack of knowledge
> and understanding in this matter to my son's same ignorance concerning
> greater things. It was an honest and fair point which you have obviously
> misconstrued.
>
> Ian
> Every time you get your ass in a crack you come out with some
> off the wall excuse and when you can't do that you say, Well that ain't the
> only way it could of been.
>
> (DAVE 6/3) Ian: Where is the error my self proclaimed errantist friend?
> It is honest and fair to say "that's not the only way it could have been"
> when there are several alternatives, none of which we can eliminate. Are
> you saying it could only have been one way? Fine. As I said, I don't
> disagree with the 24-hour period - I just said I don't know. So, you are
> saying it's a 24-hour period. You are assuming omniscience in all matters
> concerning this issue, and I'm afraid you are not omniscient.
>
> Ian
> Come up with a logical definition for "d.____" or admit there's an error
in the
> Bible or at least an apparent error.
>
> (DAVE 6/3) Ian: "Apparent" errors are the best you can do, and I, and many
> inerrantists, appreciate that. What's "apparent" to you matters nothing to
> me. I have tried to give an appropriate answer for "d", but you have
> discarded it. I guess I must acknowledge your understanding of the apparent
> absolute evidence and knowledge of the error in this account.
> I do not agree with you at this point - I don't think we can make the
> conclusion that the writer meant a 24-hour period. Nor do I think we can
> eliminate the suggestion that the writer was symbolically representing time
> periods by using the word "day". Please show me how you know that the
> writer was being literal, or admit we don't know if there's an error here or
> not.
(Ian 6/3) Dave, If you know of anyone, ANY Christian scholar, anyone who may
have
taught you the Bible - Sunday school, anything that has said this was
anything BUT
a 24 hour day? If so, PLEASE tell us. We are all waiting breathlessly for
you to
say something intelligent or to make a stand on anything. All we ever hear
from you
is, "Ahdonno- nahnesesaroly."
(DAVE 6/4) Ian: It's better than saying "I know" and taking a stand on
something that I have little, if any, idea about - which is the case on this
issue. Except for Michael Fisher, I have never known anyone who has all of
the answers that pertain to this universe. And except for Michael Fisher, I
have never known anyone who knows for an absolute that there is nothing
"beyond" our universe. I don't have these answers, I'm sorry - you might
want to ask Michael. I was on this thread, as I clearly stated, to try to
learn a little more about what the "day" meant in Genesis - my intent was
clear at the beginning: I didn't know so I wanted to learn. How much more
honest would you like me to be?
I know several people, by the way, who believe that the "day" referred to in
Genesis could be a symbolic reference - it certainly isn't a new idea, Ian.
Notice the word "could" - I don't know anyone who says it as an absolute
(but acknowledge that there are probably people who do). Are you saying
there are no people who say this?
I think there is a basic fundamental truth here that you don't understand -
you and others are trying to "prove" or "disprove" the meaning of the "day"
here when I, personally, don't really care if it is literal or figurative -
it makes little difference to me except to satisfy my curiosity. I have
stated I don't know the answer, so what is it you are arguing with me about?
If you are foolish enough to take stands on things you are ignorant about,
so be it, but don't ask me to.
Sorry if I've disappointed you, but I got from this thread what I was
looking for: my thanks to you, Yoel, Ralph and Farrell (as usual, Darrel
provided nothing constructive, just his usual fluff).
Regards.
Dave.
"I study to be little. You study to be great. I creep; you strut
along...Do not seek to be something. Let me be nothing, and Christ be all
in all."
- John Wesley writing to Francis Asbury