TILL (off topic)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> >> TILL

> >> By the way, I read that same article in today's newspaper, and it creates

> >> far more problems for you than it does me.  

> >

> Ed

> 

> The fact that the universe had a beginning dating somewhere between 12 and

> 18 billion years ago (as we reckon time, if the passage of time had been

> constant across those years) is of no significance to the systematic

> thought of the skeptic; it could have been poofed into existence last week

> and that would not change our values.  The age of the universe is, however,

> significant to the question of Biblical errancy, because if Bishop Ussher's

> meticulous calculations don't square with reality, the principles of

> scriptural inerrancy are exposed as the silly superstitions they are.

> Thus, it is appropriate for Farrell to introduce the question.


DANIEL

Ed, I know that it doesn't really make much difference in arguing biblical
inerrancy (hence it was sort of off topic), but i was kind of interested
to find out exactly where Till stood on this matter. Science does search
out new ideas and throw out the old antique ones when they are obviously
out of date, so it is of some benefit to clarify the position rather than
just take it as "not causing as many problems" for Till as for the
inerrantists. 

I see no reason to believe that matter hasn't always existed, but I would
be open to other suggestions if they are well based, and not the ravings
of a 2000 year old book.

That being said, I've enjoyed the resposes.


Daniel L

• Previous message: TILL (off topic)
• Next message: TILL (off topic)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]