Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Peter told us that some are willingly ignorant of the World that then was.

[Grandfather]

Do any of them say that "Adam didn't start out as a baby, but as an adult"?
So did the earth.

No, as far as I know the Young Earth Hicks say that Adam and Eve started out fully mature.

But remember we have no evidence that Adam and Eve were ever babies.

We do have evidence that the Biblical Earth is older than 6,000 years.... And it just so happens that science confirms that.

Believing that the earth is ONLY 6,000 years old, is on the same lack of science basis, that the earth is flat.

Sorry — we do not have evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years. We have evidence the earth appears older than 6000 years, those are two different things. You’re a wise man, you understand that difference don’t you?

Just as we do not have any physical evidence of Adam and Eve, however if we did, it would appear they were older than how we understand I one day old person to appear.

I have no doubt that if it were possible, scientist would percieve that the earth on the days of creation appeared to be much older than it was. All our current testing and labs would like verify that indeed the earth appeared older than it actually was.

Sorry, this is a “problem” for both young earth creationist and old earth re-creationist.

Of course we have evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. If you will look up all the time periods as given in Scripture you will find the time from Adam until now to be at least 6,200 years plus.... NO appearance to that it is all facts as recorded in Scripture. See God's Plan for Man for the Length of the difference dispensations.

So no problem at all for Bible Earth Daters!

You can try and lump in the anti-Scripture unbelievers with believers in Scripture all you like - but it will not wash.

I used 6,000 years as a general approximation. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. But if you want to strain the gnat of 200 years to prove a point then so be it.

[Grandfather]

Dake said: I don’t have an interpretation.... and I agree.

Lol. That means he can’t explain anything. Interpretation = explaining the meaning of something

So now you are making ad hominem attacks against Dake. Very sad.

If defining a word in a quote you attritubed to Dake is making “ad hominem attacks” - then it is actually you that made the attack. I did not change the meaning of your statement.
Not only did you claim Dake made the statement, you agreed... “I (Dake) don’t have the ability to explain the meaning of something (which is the definition of intrepretation)”. If one cannot substitute the definition of a word to replace the word, then words mean nothing.

I apologize if you are offended by the definitions, but then perhaps you are interpretating something.

[bibleman]

Dake said: I don’t have an interpretation.... and I agree.

Lol. That means he can’t explain anything. Interpretation = explaining the meaning of something

So now you are making ad hominem attacks against Dake. Very sad.

If defining a word in a quote you attritubed to Dake is making “ad hominem attacks” - then it is actually you that made the attack. I did not change the meaning of your statement.
Not only did you claim Dake made the statement, you agreed... “I (Dake) don’t have the ability to explain the meaning of something (which is the definition of intrepretation)”. If one cannot substitute the definition of a word to replace the word, then words mean nothing.

I apologize if you are offended by the definitions, but then perhaps you are interpretating something.

You just don't know that much about Dake's understanding of Scripture... if you think Dake is going to interpret Scripture!

Your ad hominem attacks are not called for.

[Grandfather]

Dake said: I don’t have an interpretation.... and I agree.

Lol. That means he can’t explain anything. Interpretation = explaining the meaning of something

So now you are making ad hominem attacks against Dake. Very sad.

If defining a word in a quote you attritubed to Dake is making “ad hominem attacks” - then it is actually you that made the attack. I did not change the meaning of your statement.
Not only did you claim Dake made the statement, you agreed... “I (Dake) don’t have the ability to explain the meaning of something (which is the definition of intrepretation)”. If one cannot substitute the definition of a word to replace the word, then words mean nothing.

I apologize if you are offended by the definitions, but then perhaps you are interpretating something.

You just don't know that much about Dake's understanding of Scripture... if you think Dake is going to interpret Scripture!

Your ad hominem attacks are not called for.

How can one know anything about his understanding of scripture since, according to you, he doesn’t explain (interpret) it? I feel similar to the Ethiopian,when asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” Responded, “How can I, unless someone explains ( interprets) it to me?