Some Notes About Me

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, it's lovely to get glimpses of Ironhorse's autobiography. Sigh.

[Guest]

 

 

On Isaiah 7:14:

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 "almah," means "young woman." "Almah" can also be taken as "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins but the word does not necessarily imply virginity.

I have read that a group Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis centuries ago when translating the text to Greek, did use the word “virgin” in their translation.

 

If you were a Jew who read Hebrew, would you semantically interpret this to read that a child was born to a virgin, or would that be a semantically nonsensical interpretation?

The NT authors wrote in the Koine Greek, and therefore based their understanding on the LXX, which caused their misinterpretation of that text. Christians can build a very implausible explanation that this was the author's intent in Isaiah, but it seems to refer to a totally separate event and matter.

If one used the standard of the "best explanation," I would have to say that the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is the worst available.

 

 

TrueScotsman, thanks for your comments. I do not read Hebrew or Greek. I do know there are two ways of reading 7:14 and I guess what one views as the best explanation is what fits one’s view of the OT scriptures as having no references about Christ or having references to Christ.

 

I do think it is a good explanation to interpret this to refer to Jesus' birth. 

 

 

In Isaiah 7:13, the prophet Isaiah turns to King Ahaz, who is a member of the house of David, and addresses the house of David. His address is to the House of David, not King Ahaz. This is a good reason, I think, to conclude its meaning is to the descendants of King David, and that the sign is directed at the house of David.

 

I understand the NT writers were writing in common Greek. Even using older Greek copies of OT scripture we don’t know how what they were told or been taught concerning these passages.

 

Note both translations the reference to see notes:

 

Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us) [see extensive commentary in The Translator To The Reader, page vii].

 

Yeshayah 7:14 (Orthodox Jewish Bible)

 

 

Therefore Adonai himself

will give you people a sign:

the young woman* will become pregnant,

bear a son and name him ‘Immanu El [God is with us].

~ Isaiah 7:14 (Complete Jewish Bible)

 

 

I believe this teaches the virgin birth of Christ but it is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. I have known Christians who held the opposite view. One of my favorite NT commentators, William Barclay, did not think the scriptures taught the virgin birth. I still enjoy and learn from his books.

 

I do believe all the scriptures were inspired by God and what is there is there for a reason. Sometimes a passage might be challenging or difficult but to me it is part of the journey. I'm not perfect. Barclay was not perfect. We might be wrong or differ on some parts of scripture like this one but not on the main message and themes.

Thanks IH, your designation of Aalmah as being a "young unmarried virgin" is a fallacy. What is happening (perhaps the guilty party is the translators), but they are packing in the entire semantic range of the word into this context. Aalmah denotes chiefly, youth, not virginity, though it certainly does entail such within particular contexts.

 

The ONLY way to read Isaiah 7:14 in such a way to arrive at this semantic meaning for Aalmah, is to read it in light of what the New Testament authors said and thought about the Messiah. Even the verb doesn't fit, as it is perfect tense and shouldn't be "will conceive," but "did conceive."

[bornagainathiest]

In his OP Ironhorse describes how he chose between two options regarding the origin of the universe.

 

Posted 24 April 2016 - 06:54 PM

"So, I was pondering do we live in an eternal existing universe or did the Big Bang happen? Matter had to come from somewhere, so I went with the Big Bang idea."

.

.

.

https://www.amazon.com/Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402?ie=UTF8&qid=1310317003&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

 

(Excerpts from Chapter One, "The Ultimate Free Lunch")

 

"If the universe is to be described by physical laws that embody the conservation of energy, then the universe must have the same energy as whatever it was created from.  If the universe was created from nothing, then the total energy must be zero.  But the universe is clearly filled with energy : the Earth, the Sun, the Milky Way, and the hundred billion galaxies that make up the observable universe clearly contain an unfathomable amount of mass/energy.  How, then, is there any hope that the creation of the universe might be described scientifically?  An answer to this arises from an extraordinary feature of one particular form of energy - gravitational potential energy..."

 

[After briefly describing the properties of gravitational fields, the narrative returns to the theme of the universe's origin.]

 

"Now, we can return to the key question : How is there any hope that the creation of the universe might be described by physical laws consistent with energy conservation?

Answer : the energy stored in the gravitational field is represented by a negative number.  That is, the energy stored in a gravitational field is actually less than zero.  If negative numbers are allowed, then zero can be obtained by adding a positive number to a negative number of equal magnitude; for example 7 plus -7 equals zero.  It is therefore conceivable that the total energy of the universe is zero.  The immense energy that we observe in the form of matter can be cancelled by a negative contribution of equal magnitude, coming from the gravitational field.  There is no limit to the magnitude of energy in the gravitational field, and hence no limit to the amount of matter/energy that it can cancel."

 

"Given this peculiar property of gravity, a scientific description of the creation of the universe is not precluded by the conservation of energy.  Other conservation laws also need to be considered, in particular the conservation of a quantity called baryon number, which will be discussed in Chapter 6.  But the conclusion will not be changed : The universe could have evolved from absolutely nothing in a manner consistent with all known conservation laws.  While no detailed scientific theory of creation is known, the possibility of developing such a theory now appears open."

 

[This book was published in 1997 and since then almost all of the predictions made by the theory of Cosmic Inflation have been precisely confirmed.]  

 

"After two thousand years of scientific research, it now seems likely that Lucretius was wrong.

Conceivably, everything can be created from nothing.  And "everything" might include a lot more than what we can see.  In the the context of inflationary cosmology, it is fair to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch."

 

[About Lucretius... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing ]

.

.

.

Sorry Ironhorse, but cosmological science seems to disagree with you.

 

Matter doesn't have to come from somewhere.

[bornagainathiest]

Oh and if you're thinking of responding Ironhorse, please remember these points.

 

1.  

The scientific investigation of the physical universe doesn't prove anything - it only provides the best explanation of what is observed according to the available evidence.

 

2.

"It's only a theory" is not a valid response.  As just mentioned, ALL*of science is theoretical.  But we accept it as being valid because it accurately describes what we see.

 

3.

The principle of cause-and-effect does not apply as you would expect when it comes to quantum physics.  

So the naive response that cause-and-effect is violated by 'everything coming from nothing' or by 'something coming from nothing' does not hold true.

 

4.

The use of negative values to measure the magnitude of the universe's gravitational field and to cancel out the positive values of other types of energy is not just a trick or some kind of mathematical sleight-of-hand.  If it were and the gravitational field had to be given a positive value, then the equations of Inflationary theory simply wouldn't work.  Also, such 'positive only' predictions would differ drastically from the ones made using negative values.  Since Inflation's predictions have been exceptionally well confirmed by observations, we can therefore conclude that the usage of negative values is valid.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

* Note:

While it is true that in the physical sciences nothing is ever proved, proofs do exist in math.

 

[ironhorse]

The ONLY way to read Isaiah 7:14 in such a way to arrive at this semantic meaning for Aalmah, is to read it in light of what the New Testament authors said and thought about the Messiah. Even the verb doesn't fit, as it is perfect tense and shouldn't be "will conceive," but "did conceive."

 

~ Truescotsman

 

 

If that is your reading of the text, no need to carry on trying to persuade each other. 

 

Thanks for the reply. 

 

[bornagainathiest]

The ONLY way to read Isaiah 7:14 in such a way to arrive at this semantic meaning for Aalmah, is to read it in light of what the New Testament authors said and thought about the Messiah. Even the verb doesn't fit, as it is perfect tense and shouldn't be "will conceive," but "did conceive."

 

~ Truescotsman

 

 

If that is your reading of the text, no need to carry on trying to persuade each other. 

 

Thanks for the reply. 

 

Why not, Ironhorse?

 

Please explain.

[Bhim]

The individuals you named are part of the neo-Reformed movement (Calvinism), and only represent a historically fringe understanding of Christian doctrine.

 

Grudem and Piper are the more scholarly of the bunch, but aren't people I would consider scholars, and the rest are pastors. Don't fall into the New Atheist mistake of only thinking particular views of Christianity as valid.

 

If I'm honest, I think it's all nonsense, but Calvinists are no more entitled to their nonsense than Arminians are, or for that matter pelagians, semi-pelagians, etc.

 

Orthodox is defined as the historic winners of doctrinal debate, which at many times wasn't even a fair debate. Expand your view of what Christianity is, and you'll likely be more effective at discussing with people who don't embrace the view you're most acquainted with.

You're right to identify these people are adherents to the Reformed tradition or "New Calvinists" as Christianity Today identified them about a decade ago. While they were one of many sects in old Europe, they have enjoyed quite a following in America, e.g. Whitfield. But perhaps more importantly, in modern times they have gained great popularity, and by embracing the Internet in general and social media in particular, their influence has grown in recent years. This isn't to say that I'd discount the influence of other Christian groups like dispensationalists in the tradition of Tim LaHaye. But I'd rank the new Calvinists as the most dangerous to American culture, precisely because they have intellectually ferocious leaders such as Grudem and Piper. Whilst I don't ultimately believe that the theological framework lain by these people is correct, I do recognize that they have great persuasive power, and are able to gain converts even in academic circles (case in point: at the height of my own faith in Jesus I was an active member of secular academia).

 

I believe that ultimately we shouldn't prioritize Christians only by how accurately they interpret the Bible, but also by their ability to gain new converts. I often ask myself: who is most able to prey on and convert my fellow Hindus, both here in America and abroad? Who is able to snare the next generation of scientists into evangelical Christianity during their college educations? And we'd be remiss to ignore the brand of Christian who has the most political power, namely conservative evangelicals. New Calvinists aren't the only group who fall into the categories I've outlined. Southern Baptists, and "non-denominational" Christians do as well (and actually people like this have a lot of overlap with New Calvinists). But if we are honest with ourselves, we know that people like Ironhorse, if he really even is a Christian, pose no threat to American culture. This posts are conglomerations of trivialities, Bob Dylan lyrics, fortune cookie wisdom, and various other trivialities. I can scarcely imagine any intelligent person (or even a mildly unintelligent person) read his posts, re-evaluate their worldviews, and consider conversion to Christianity. If anything, Ironhorse does a great service to the ex-Christian and anti-Christian cause by portraying Christianity as a mundane and idiotic religion.

 

Even I don't have as low an opinion of Christianity as Ironhorse does! Let him keep posting his Bob Dylan lyrics instead of engaging in rational dialog, and let his contributions to this forum serve as effective anti-Christian propaganda.

[duderonomy]

One of the two genealogies in the Bible trace Jesus from two thousand years ago back to Adam, so like six thousand years or so in total from Adam to Jesus to now.

 

Since Biblegod created everything including the heavens and the earth in six days, doesn't that kind of leave the Big Bang out of the equation? 

 

How can Ironhorse "go with the Big Bang idea" and still believe the Bible? 

[ironhorse]

 

The ONLY way to read Isaiah 7:14 in such a way to arrive at this semantic meaning for Aalmah, is to read it in light of what the New Testament authors said and thought about the Messiah. Even the verb doesn't fit, as it is perfect tense and shouldn't be "will conceive," but "did conceive."

 

~ Truescotsman

 

 

If that is your reading of the text, no need to carry on trying to persuade each other. 

 

Thanks for the reply. 

 

Why not, Ironhorse?

 

Please explain.

 

 

 

Why not continue the discussion on Isaiah 7:14 with Truescotsman?

 

Because we have both presented our viewpoint. At this point we do not agree.

We know where we each stand. What purpose would it serve either of us to continue at this point?

 

It might come up again in a discussion later on. I don't know.

[Guest]

 

 

The ONLY way to read Isaiah 7:14 in such a way to arrive at this semantic meaning for Aalmah, is to read it in light of what the New Testament authors said and thought about the Messiah. Even the verb doesn't fit, as it is perfect tense and shouldn't be "will conceive," but "did conceive."

 

~ Truescotsman

 

 

If that is your reading of the text, no need to carry on trying to persuade each other.

 

Thanks for the reply.

Why not, Ironhorse?

 

Please explain.

 

Why not continue the discussion on Isaiah 7:14 with Truescotsman?

 

Because we have both presented our viewpoint. At this point we do not agree.

We know where we each stand. What purpose would it serve either of us to continue at this point?

 

It might come up again in a discussion later on. I don't know.

That's about it. I don't adopt the idea that the New Testament perspective on this passage is relevant in exegesis, because I don't believe in the inspiration of the text.

 

A pretty obvious difference between the two of us, that isn't possible to be reconciled. I don't see what benefit it would be to say, "IronHorse, you still haven't addressed my argument posted on the 9th of June 2016, still waiting on that."

 

There was nothing personal about the discussion, so I decided to not press the point further after your remarks.

 

But I guess that's just the way I think about it.

[bornagainathiest]

One of the two genealogies in the Bible trace Jesus from two thousand years ago back to Adam, so like six thousand years or so in total from Adam to Jesus to now.

 

Since Biblegod created everything including the heavens and the earth in six days, doesn't that kind of leave the Big Bang out of the equation? 

 

How can Ironhorse "go with the Big Bang idea" and still believe the Bible? 

 

Good call, Dude.

 

6,000 years or so versus 13,780,000,000.

 

[ironhorse]

 

One of the two genealogies in the Bible trace Jesus from two thousand years ago back to Adam, so like six thousand years or so in total from Adam to Jesus to now.

 

Since Biblegod created everything including the heavens and the earth in six days, doesn't that kind of leave the Big Bang out of the equation? 

 

How can Ironhorse "go with the Big Bang idea" and still believe the Bible? 

 

Good call, Dude.

 

6,000 years or so versus 13,780,000,000.

 

 

 

 

I said at the time I just went with "the big bang" idea on how the universe and matter came into being. Am I wrong in thinking that some scientists still hold to this view? I remember reading some other views on the origin of the universe. 

 

 

That said, where did I say the universe or earth are only six thousand years old? 

 

 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

~ Genesis 1(KJV)

 

Verse one does not give a time or day. Creation could have occurred untold eons ago.

In verse 2 it appears the earth was already in existence. It seems to be in desolation. Notice God first deals with the waters.

 

The scriptures don't reveal all the details of how God accomplished this feat. It tells some of the story. It makes the point that God is the Creator. 

 

I've read science fiction novels where humans were beyond being able to understand a highly advanced civilization.

I think the same way about God. 

[rjn]

I've read science fiction novels where humans were beyond being able to understand a highly advanced civilization.

I think the same way about God.

 

I'd accept that as a viable option if it wasn't for the fact that you're alleged God makes judgements and expects us to believe, yet providing NO incentive to do so other than baseless claims in a confusing and inconsistent book. Many religions have an idea up a supreme being that's transcendent, incomprehensible and beyond the grasp of men. That, however, is NOT the case with YHWH and his often very human characteristics.

[duderonomy]

 

 

One of the two genealogies in the Bible trace Jesus from two thousand years ago back to Adam, so like six thousand years or so in total from Adam to Jesus to now.

 

Since Biblegod created everything including the heavens and the earth in six days, doesn't that kind of leave the Big Bang out of the equation? 

 

How can Ironhorse "go with the Big Bang idea" and still believe the Bible? 

 

Good call, Dude.

 

6,000 years or so versus 13,780,000,000.

 

 

 

 

I said at the time I just went with "the big bang" idea on how the universe and matter came into being. Am I wrong in thinking that some scientists still hold to this view? I remember reading some other views on the origin of the universe. 

 

 

That said, where did I say the universe or earth are only six thousand years old? 

 

 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

~ Genesis 1(KJV)

 

Verse one does not give a time or day. Creation could have occurred untold eons ago.

In verse 2 it appears the earth was already in existence. It seems to be in desolation. Notice God first deals with the waters.

 

The scriptures don't reveal all the details of how God accomplished this feat. It tells some of the story. It makes the point that God is the Creator. 

 

I've read science fiction novels where humans were beyond being able to understand a highly advanced civilization.

I think the same way about God. 

 

 

I don't know that you ever said the universe or earth were only six thousand years old, but I think the Bible does. Using one of the two contradicting genealogies of Jesus in the NT, we have about six thousand years between Adam and Jesus.

 

Genesis makes it pretty clear that the entirety of the the universe, the earth and everything on it were created in six days, and god rested on the seventh. Each day had a morning and and evening, a daytime and a night. Six literal days.

 

In verse one, we're told god created the heavens and the earth. To say that the earth was without form and void means nothing to your argument that it could have been created eons ago. In fact, in the rest of the chapter and the first part of chapter two, we are shown how and when god gave form to this planet.

In chapter two, verse one, we are told that god's creation was completed on day six, with the seventh day being for his rest.

 

This is why I asked you if you ever read your Bible without the footnotes and commentaries, and without letting all of the preachers and authors into your head to interrupt your reading. Just you and your Bible.

I challenge you to read Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:1...text only. You'll see that it plainly describes the creation of the heavens, and the earth, as taking place in six literal days, and that includes the creation of Adam. Then four thousand years or so until Jesus, and another two thousand of course, from Jesus to us now.

 

I think you have to put words and ideas of your own (or someone else's) into the plain text to make it say something other than what it says. It says nothing about desolation. It says nothing about god getting around to finally do something with earth eons after he created it. 

 

I'm asking you to consider that the Bible says what it says. You believe it's true, and I no longer do, but wishful thinking, throwing in might-have-beens and flat making stuff up that just isn't in the book won't change what the text plainly says.

 

I won't even ask you to read the rest of chapter two, and then explain how in chapter one vegetation came on the 3rd day and man on the 6th, while in chapter two, verses 5-7, man came first and then vegetation. That's for a whole other thread. 

[rjn]

In all fairness dude, but I think the "6000 year old Earth" theory is based on early (and, AFAIK, a Jewish one)medieval traditions, which in turn are based on Biblical genealogies yes, but nonetheless, the age of the Earth is never explicitly stated in the Bible.

[duderonomy]

In all fairness dude, but I think the "6000 year old Earth" theory is based on early (and, AFAIK, a Jewish one)medieval traditions, which in turn are based on Biblical genealogies yes, but nonetheless, the age of the Earth is never explicitly stated in the Bible.

 

It's Bible, rjn. 

[qadeshet]

 

I've read science fiction novels where humans were beyond being able to understand a highly advanced civilization.

I think the same way about God.

I'd accept that as a viable option if it wasn't for the fact that you're alleged God makes judgements and expects us to believe, yet providing NO incentive to do so other than baseless claims in a confusing and inconsistent book. Many religions have an idea up a supreme being that's transcendent, incomprehensible and beyond the grasp of men. That, however, is NOT the case with YHWH and his often very human characteristics.

 

 

Ironehorse is still confusing SF, of which I've read thousands of books, with his own Subjective "god". Ironhorse, going to Church and hearing about the Mythical adventures of "Jesus of Nazareth", is exactly like going to a movie theater, watching Star Wars , and marveling at the wonderful adventures of Luke Skywalker. Are you really willing to spend countless hours, and mucho denero, believeing in Harry Potter? If you do, then I'm really sorry. What a great way to waste a Life. You are our friend, so no insult is intended.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted 21 June 2016 - 06:24 PM, by Ironhorse

 

"I said at the time I went with "the big bang" idea on how the universe and matter came into being.  Am I wrong to think that some scientists still hold to this view?"

.

.

.

Well, that depends on which Big Bang theory you're referring to, Ironhorse.

The Standard Big Bang (SBB) from the mid 1960's or the Inflationary Big Bang (IBB) from early 1980's?  If you went with the SBB, then you went with a theory that was found to be unworkable and which has now been discarded in favor of the IBB.  Here's why. 

.

.

.

From Alan Guth's book, "The Inflationary Universe : The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins", p.265.

 

"While the theorem in the previous paragraph [Roger Penrose's theory of black hole collapse] refers to contracting objects, not expanding objects, general relativity [GR] makes no distinction between the two directions of time.  That is, if one filmed a movie of any event described by GR, then the movie shown backward in time would also describe a possible sequence of events.  Similarly, if a movie shows a sequence of events that are impossible according to GR, then the movie shown backwards must also be impossible."

 

"According to the Penrose theorem, rapid collapse without a subsequent singularity is impossible.  Reversing the direction of time, it follows that rapid expansion without a preceding singularity is also impossible.  The kind of singularity that would be needed here is a time-reversed form of a black hole, often called a white hole.  That is, matter emerging from such a [white hole] singularity would be identical to matter collapsing into a black hole [singularity], but shown backward.  While matter falls into a black hole and can never escape, matter emerges from a white hole and can never enter it.  The white hole is exactly the kind of initial singularity that was hypothesized in the standard form of the Big Bang theory..."

.

.

.

(Me talking now.)

And such a white hole singularity cannot produce the kind of expanding universe that we live in.  In a nutshell, any expansion of matter from a white hole cannot happen fast enough to overcome gravity.  Such a universe quickly re-collapses back in upon itself to become a black hole.  Since our universe clearly hasn't collapsed to become a black hole, the SBB's usage of GR cannot be correct.  Therefore, the SBB has been discarded in favor of the IBB.  There are two main reasons for this.  The first is that the IBB successfully describes how an expanding universe sidesteps the problem of gravitational collapse.  The second is that most of it's theoretical predictions have been independently confirmed to very high degrees of confidence by the observed data.  Or, putting it more simply, the IBB is very well supported by the evidence... and in science the bottom line is always the evidence.

 

Which brings me neatly on to your question, Ironhorse.

"Am I wrong to think that some scientists still hold to this view?"  If you are talking about SBB theory, then 'Yes', you are wrong.  The IBB and not the SBB is currently the best explanation for what we observe.  And I would also draw your attention back to post # 108, where I described how IBB cosmology disagrees with your reasoning about matter... having to ...come from somewhere.   According to the IBB, the entire universe is the ultimate free lunch.  Everything doesn't have to come from something.  Everything can come from nothing. 

 

So you could be wrong twice over, Ironhorse.

First, because if you went with the SBB, then you went with a theory that was unworkable.  Second, if you went with the IBB because... matter has to come from somewhere ...you were 100% wrong.  Your assertion plays no part in that theory.  In fact, the opposite is true.  As I described in # 108, it is entirely possible for the universe to have come from... nothing.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s.

If you are considering replying Ironhorse, please remember the following.

 

1. 

Science never proves anything.  So please don't refer to anything in cosmology being proved.  Supported by evidence - but not proved.  Ok?

 

2.

Loopholes in Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics permit an entire universe to come from nothing.

 

3.

Please Google 'Ultimate Free Lunch' for further info.

[duderonomy]

I don't know, BAA. I tried to show IH how the earth is only around six thousand years old from the Bible. He hasn't given any kind of response to that, so hard telling what reply he'll give to your post.  

 

I'd want a discussion based on chapters and verses, which is all IH really has to go by, him being a Baptist and all. I'm wondering if we'll both get Dylan or Bono lyrics in response? I hope not, because Ironhorse has really been talking lately.

[Bhim]

I don't know, BAA. I tried to show IH how the earth is only around six thousand years old from the Bible. He hasn't given any kind of response to that, so hard telling what reply he'll give to your post.  

 

I'd want a discussion based on chapters and verses, which is all IH really has to go by, him being a Baptist and all. I'm wondering if we'll both get Dylan or Bono lyrics in response? I hope not, because Ironhorse has really been talking lately.

 

I remember when I was a Christian, I was an old earth creationist. I knew at some level that it wasn't the most obvious reading of the Bible. I could not in good conscience say that a person reading the Bible even five hundred years ago would naturally come to the conclusion that an age of the earth (or at least order of magnitude approximation) is not specified. But it's very hard as a scientist to perform the intellectual compartmentalization needed to believe in young earth creationism. the old earth school of thought was a sort of way out of this dilemma without noticing the contradiction between my knowledge base in both science and the Bible. I suppose it was fortunate that I am a physicist rather than a biologist, otherwise I'd have been burdened with the knowledge of the theory of evolution as well. And this is something that is not compatible with even old earth creationism.

[bornagainathiest]

I don't know, BAA. I tried to show IH how the earth is only around six thousand years old from the Bible. He hasn't given any kind of response to that, so hard telling what reply he'll give to your post.  

 

I'd want a discussion based on chapters and verses, which is all IH really has to go by, him being a Baptist and all. I'm wondering if we'll both get Dylan or Bono lyrics in response? I hope not, because Ironhorse has really been talking lately.

 

There's not much point in him talking to us Dude - if he's not being honest with us.

 

Or with Jeff.

 

Did you see what I found over and posted, over in this thread..?

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72218-your-god-is-too-small/page-7#.V276tPkrJD8

 

See post # 122.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Oh... lookee here!

 

It seems that somebody calling themselves 'The Iron Horse' also posts Sunday Dispatch messages in this forum.

 

http://bordercross82885.yuku.com/topic/2259#.V27-ffkrJD- (As an Administrator, no less!)

 

Total Posts: 5436 Profile Views: 184 Last Seen: 03/10/16 Joined: 03/31/02 Lives In: Greenville, SC, US

.

.

.

And there's an Ironhorse who talks about Bono and makes Sunday Dispatch postings in this forum too.  (That pic of him looks mighty familiar, btw.)

 

http://naaminis.com/smf/index.php?topic=4979.70#msg93872

.

.

.

So that's four (4) forums Ironhorse doesn't regularly post in.

 

I wonder why he told Jeff that he didn't post in any other forums?    

[bornagainathiest]

Here's the Sunday Dispatch thread Ironhorse used to run in the Den.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60654-sunday-dispatch/#.V28BfvkrJD8

[duderonomy]

Thanks BAA, those links were very eye opening.  The same picture, the same bottle of Cheerwine, the same Dylan quotes.

 

Why Ironhorse feels the need to lie about posting in other forums is beyond me. I could see it if his stuff was old, but some of his posts were just a few weeks ago. Certainly no one would care if he did post elsewhere, so I wonder why the lie? 

 

There's nothing like getting duped by someone claiming to be a Christian...again. Here I was starting to think he was being genuine. 

[qadeshet]

Honestly guys, if he sometimes annoys...Try this. But keep it to yourselves.

 

 

“Know Thyself” was written on the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Legend tells that the seven sages of ancient Greece, philosophers, statesmen and law-givers, who laid the foundation for western culture, gathered in Delphi to inscribe “know thyself” at the entry to its sacred oracle. The adage subsequently became a touch-stone for western philosophers, and extended its reach as the influence of Greek philosophy expanded. This site gathers its most profound expressions and elaborates on their meaning.

 

Psychology Today

 

Know Thyself

Personal intelligence opens a privileged window into our own minds as well as into the most byzantine motivations of others. Personality psychologist John D. Mayer, who codeveloped the theory of emotional intelligence, unpacks an idea that has profound ramifications for how we see ourselves.