-=> Quoting Mark Bloss to Nick Douglas <=-
 MB> It is not a go-between to accept scientific evidence _and_ accept
 MB> the Word too.
You are such a liar.  You accept neither the scientific
evidence nor the Word.
 MB> Didn't the Catholic Pope make a huge mistake by banning
 MB> Copernicus?
An anti-Christ censored Copernicus.  Anti-Christians even
now practice censorship - it's one of your favorite tools.
 MB> When we used to think, Christians that is, that the Sun
 MB> circled the Earth and we were the center of the universe?
You stupid imp, those beliefs originated as secular scientific
observations - just like Evolution.
 MB> Now we all accept it, that the Earth
 MB> circles the Sun.  We don't consider anything else.
Moron, the sun does circle the Earth - just as surly as
the Earth circles the sun.
 MB> There certainly are the literalists who
 MB> contend that when the Genesis account uses the term "day" it is
 MB> literally a  24 hour period of time - but there is very strong
 MB> evidence that the Genesis account is a parable - and not to be taken
 MB> literally.
You aren't just ignorant, but you are willingly ignorant.  There
is no evidence that it is not to be taken literally.
 MB> Besides this, the term "day" in the original Hebrew is as
 MB> easily translated as "age".  We still DO use the term day in this
 MB> manner to-"day"!
Chimp, that isn't evidence.  It is common for words to
have many meanings, but the context doesn't support your
"age" interpretation.
 MB> After all, why would God be in such a hurry to get it done
 MB> in 6 days and why should He need to rest since He never gets tired?
Satan is proud of you.  Your lies are every bit as refined as
the lies told by the Serpent to Eve.  God created the Earth
and everything on it in six days and on the seventh day He
ceased his creation activity.  There was no hurry and there
was no exhaustion.
 MB> And why would the Genesis account in 2:4 use the term "day" to refer
 MB> to the _entire_ period of creation "week"?
Any Christian would observe that the context has changed from
the first chapter.
 MB> Notice also a most peculiar thing:  The Genesis account uses the 
 MB> phrase "and there was evening and there was morning, a first day" 
 MB> "...second day" etc - but it was not until the 4th day that God 
 MB> made the Sun and the moon! (Gen 1:14ff) Therefore there could not
 MB> have been a morning or an evening on the first three days.
Is there no end to the boldness of your lies?  God clearly
creates a cycle of night and day before the fourth day.  And,
the verse you refer to is explicit that God placed the sun
and moon in that cycle of night and day.
 MB> Here,
 MB> morning and evening refer to the "ending" of one age, and the 
 MB> "beginning" of a new age, and can be interpreted this way, solving 
 MB> this apparent "contradiction".
The intensity of your ignorance and lies makes a great fireworks
display.  Considering that you say "it was not until the 4th
day that God made the sun and the moon!" you must also be saying
that the earth existed for ages before the sun existed.  Your
reasoning is so pathetic.
 MB> It is peculiar to me that literalists
 MB> will do marvelous acrobatics to get around this, when the most
 MB> logical interpretation solves the apparent anomaly forthwith!
You've gone from expressions of ignorance and lies to the
babbling of a lunatic.
 MB> Mark, firm Christian, a believer in the resurrection, not that
 MB> that's so important for you to know.  It is enough that *I* believe
 MB> it  and live accordingly.  With warm regards.
And, Jesus will say to you "Depart, I never knew you."
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0066
---------------