Archive for July, 2010

Bible Interpretation: How To

July 20, 2010

What is wrong with the the common notion that the “firmament’, the “windows of heaven”, the ‘pillars of the earth”, the “four corner of the earth”, etc, constitute phenomonological language that accomodated ANE cosmology?

The answer to this lies in understanding the proper approach to scripture, besides taking note of the big caution flag that this very recent “discovery” of what Genesis really meant to the ancient Hebrews did not happen until after modern denials of Creation came up with new “science so called”.

Here follow guidelines for those who need it for “interpreting” Bible verses, especially the interpretation of figures of speech like those mentioned in the above list.

“Phenomenological language” is a bit different concept, but one may call it one example of a figure of speech.

Considerations for understanding the Bible.


That means if the literal meaning makes semantical and grammatical sense as is, then there is no need to tamper with it, just believe.

Sometimes the literal meaning of one isolated word is semantically ridiculous, like talking about the “four corners of the earth”. In such cases, the word is part of a “figure of speech”. The individual words used in a figure of speech have no meaning, because they are part of what is conceptually the same thing as a “compound word”.

What some people call “phenomenological language” is really a figure of speech. Saying the sun is “on the horizon” does not mean it is physically located on one of the points of the physical land that we can see from a given point, it means that’s the way we see it. By they way, I prefer the term “positional” for this particular example.

But if there is no compelling reason –especially in context– to say it is only phenomenological or positional, then it’s not.

If Acts 1:9 says Jesus was “taken up” and “a cloud received him out of their sight” then that’s what happened.
If Exodus 20:11 says “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is”, then that is what happened.
If it says a great fish swallowed Jonah, then you don’t need a yardstick to measure the fish.


Immediate context trumps anything from outside context for interpreting anything about which there is some question. But it is an invalid question anyway if it comes from doubt, or a desire to escape the straightforward meaning of a word or verse.

A word in scripture has its own meaning, and the immediate context clarifies it further.

For example, if you don’t know exactly what a cubit is, you can know from the immediate contexts that mention Goliath, that he was abnormally huge, and that nine feet is a much more reasonable measure than is six feet.


Further help for those who are still confused is provided by context found a step beyond immediate.

For example, there are attempts to cast doubt on the virgin birth by making Mary a “young woman” instead are laughable when you consider she asked how could this be “for I know not a man?” Try substituting “young woman” for “virgin” in the Isaiah prophecy for a really good belly laugh. Imagine the Lord telling the prophet that he will give you a sign, that a young woman shall conceive and bear a son. What a sign!

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the case of Genesis, it does nobody any good to look elsewhere for the meaning of the word “day”. The immediate context says it was “the evening and the morning”. The days are numbered as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. The days are not only numbered but clearly given as consecutive ordinal numbers, one following the other.

For Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it does no good either to try to divide them out. The first verse certainly can stand on its own by itself as a magnificent proclamation of God being the Creator, but it’s snuggled up to the rest of Genesis scripture that follows.

Keep in mind that although the KJB is accepted by tens of thousands as inspired word of God (call it re-inspired if you want to), it seems like nobody considers either the paragraph markings or the verse and chapter organization as inspired. They are convenient for referring to particular sections of scripture, but the first two verses of Genesis are part of the integrated narrative that begins the chapter.

Also, anything else would be irrelevant. In any case the only reason to try to twist it into supporting an earlier creation of some sort has no corroboration from context in any way. The idea only came about to accomodate the millions of years that evolutionists were adding on the age of the earth. This also is shot down by the fact that there was no light until God said “Let there –be– light”, and so such an idea shoots itself in the foot.


This is where relevant references from elsewhere teach us. It is true that some sections of scripture may not be too clear to someone, so cross-referencing can help. It is also true that we can all too easily and all too often take a chapter or a verse in some way, but then we find that the way we took it is not at all what the Bible says on the subject everywhere else, so we have to go back to that verse.

Peter said this about some of Paul’s writings:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So some scriptures can lead you away if you want them to. So don’t!

(5).ENGLISH DICTIONARY. (With great caution)
Great caution because if the dictionary is not a dedicated devoted follower of Christ with spiritual discernment and guard up against deceit, one can be fooled into getting the wrong definition out of a set, and even there, the misapplication can be wrong.

In general if you are merely trying to let the Bible tell you what it says, instead of trying to figure out how to fit it to yourself, you will find the truth of it.

I said English dictionary because this writing is in English, and because the KJB is the gold standard of scripture today. The KJB is written in English and the major factor in the stabilization of the language.

For example, some creationists seem to have a hurdle with the the word “firmament”. The word firmament is a proper English word, like so many that were imported into the English language from Biblical sources long before the KJB was translated. I have seen the claim that a word that was in common use already for 70 years still does not count as a proper word to use for “translation”, as if no self-respecting United Nations interpreter today would use the word “tsunami” when translating from Japanese.

Most of the time where modern critics find fault with “difficult words” in the English of the KJB, it is merely a justification for a versions preference. But some will not know the meaning, and will still be unsure with context, but all they really need is a dictionary.


One of my best friends is of Greek descent (cue laughter), but he would agree, I wot. Beware of Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, especially Biblical dictionaries today. Most of them are based on the work of one Gerard Kittel, a “Christian scholar” who was the “Christian spiritual adviser” to Adolf Hitler.

In part because of the blasphemies in his work, we now have modern versions using the word “race” where it should be using the word “seed”.

Like the verse which becomes literally racist in the NIV, Ezra 9:2: They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”

That verse should read:

Ezra 9:2 “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”


If you are tempted to override a section of scripture with some extraneous doctrine because “respectable Christians” say it means something else, but this particular scripture incorporates a repetition of the matter, this is an emphasis on the clear meaning of it.


Beware of the surrounding pagan doctrines creeping in to your view of the Bible. God’s chosen people have lived apart from the world around them, in the world but not of it. Therefore if a tribe nearby to the peoples of the Bible held a doctrine, it might be good reason to think the Hebrews believed differently. Certainly their ideas of creation, cosmology, origins were different.

Not every idea of some particular ungodly thinker is bad, they do get some things right of course. But they cannot trump the clear meaning of a word, as reinforced by immediate context, and by more distant context, and by relevant declarations elsewhere in scripture.

(It is a non-fiction book of books).

This may seem like it goes without saying for a Bible believer. But it helps understand some scriptures when extraneous “interpretations” are trying to say it means something other than what it says.

The Bible is written as a statement of what happened, and of what the world is now, and how things work in the real world, and prophecies of what shall be.

Analogies, fables, fairy tales, symbolic stories, these are so identified.

For example, the heads of the ten-headed beast in Revelation are identified clearly there and in Daniel as representing ten kings, and the seven mountains upon “on which the woman sitteth” of Revelation 17 and 18 are clearly identified specifically as seven kings.

Note only that five are already fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece), and one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come (The Empire of the Beast, or Antichrist).


Anti-creationists should open their minds..

July 19, 2010

What creationists are asking for from evolutionists and darwinists, and young-earth creationists from old-earth creationists.

Why should they preach to six-day creationists about open-mindedness and not their own excessive bashers?

I went through likely more paradigms of origins than almost anybody in my younger days, including old-earth creationism, evolution, Big Bang, until real-world and science and historical fact with their logical consequences became so overwhelming that it became settled for me.

The Bible has proven time after time to trump its detractors, including those inside Christian institutions.

For example, I much prefer discussing the actual issues relevant to the issues of the Bible and the science than engage in discussions about behavior.

What is the norm in the establishment-approved “consensus science” today.

Take it from an anti-creationist if not me. Here’s Michael Crichton
blasting away at today’s “consensus science” and the way it is the /science establishment/ that has its sacred inviolable dogmas that are not permitted dissent:

Funny, he started off with a total logical emasculation of the “Drake equation”. It should have killed it forever, but it remains the favorite “science” argument of SETI.

*”The Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. . . ”

*”Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”*

*”There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .”*

*”This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands…

“…Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?”*


Even More Embarrassments for Anti-Creationists

July 18, 2010

Bicycle-man has provided us with more entertaining sound bites to use to showcase the bankruptcy of Darwinism.

Piltdown man was suspected early on because as more hominid fossils were discovered Piltdown didn’t fit the pattern shown by the others. Also, there were no primitive apes in England so that made it even more suspect.

Yeah, fifty years later, after getting showcased and front and center at the museum in London, when they found it was a fraud, everybody claimed they knew it all along.

Reminds me of a Pee Wee Herman snip from one movie, speaking of bikes, the ad for one of his movies where he falls off his bicycle and says “I meant to do that”.

It is a shame it took forty years to discover the fraud, but it was scientists who discovered the fraud, not creationists. This shows the self-correcting nature of science, something that religious nuts don’t have.

Ha, not creationists, so what, creationists were telling them all along it didn’t prove anything about Darwinism. Creationists were right fifty years before the “scientific establishment”, but they didn’t mention that in this blurb about “it wasn’t creationists”. Ha. But it exposed how desperate the mad scientist bunch is to have even a fraud for evidence, because they are so short on it!

One “evolutionary biologist” said you could fit ALL pre-hominid fossils into the back of a pickup truck.

And science isn’t self-correcting it doesn’t do anything. Scientists sometimes do what we call science. But for sure scientists are not “self-correcting”. Since they put God out of their thoughts it gets crazier by the minute.

And the delusion that scientists do not have any of the common foibles of common man, is an even worse delusion. Ask a real scientists who has been tortured through peer review and had a paper rejected only to see his own idea show up in somebody else’s published article.

That is “The way science works”. Ask atheist cosmologist and Royal Society Fellowship recipient Joao Magueijo, of the book “Faster Than the Speed of Light”.

Nebraska Man was never accepted by the scientific community.

But they promoted its use in the national press to pile dirt on William Jennings Bryant in the press across the country –during the Scopes trial. Some “coincidence”.

The use the same tactics today, use the court system to do their dirty work, preferably where they can find a good compromised corrupt judge. Watch out when you start using government halls to overturn the people by deciding which theories are “scientific”, you have trouble, and it’s going to backfire on you.

The Darwinian establishment is bothered by laws that even tell their students it’s okay to question scientific orthodoxy. That should tell you something.

Also, these examples you give are from the 1910s and 1920s.

Like the 21st century dino-bird in China?

And whoever said that Neanderthal Man is the same as modern humans is misinformed. They are close relatives, perhaps close enough to be part ancestor to some modern humans, so close that they are now considered by most to be a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. That doesn’t mean they are “just like us.”

“Just like us” is a big word. When it is a true hominid of the rare find, it turns out eventually the same as with the Hobbits they found in Indonesia and the Pygmies in Africa. Oh gosh, they are us!

Like Ota Benga.

This man from the Pygmy tribe in Africa was showcased –IN A CAGE!– at the St. Louis Fair as an exhibit of the “missing link” in man’s evolution, and shipped like an animal to the New York Zoo afterward. The man that was only released after protests from Christians!

Would ANY amount of evidence be sufficient for you to admit that humans share common biological ancestry with other animals? It seems you are very misinformed and that you have a closed mind to truth because you are looking at everything through filters of faith. I can’t believe in a God that would try to trick us by planting all these clues that evolution explains and predicts so neatly. Just a few would be one thing, but there is so much evidence of so many different types that all point to the same reality that it seems madness for anyone to deny it.

It’s not there, and you’re not offering any real evidence. God didn’t paint any such clues. It’s a “fairy tale for adults” like one evolutionary biologist said once. My faith is based on solid evidence, unlike maybe some Christians.

Again, would ANY amount of evidence be sufficient for you to admit you are wrong. If so, why don’t you already accept the truth of God’s creation (i.e., that evolution is as much a fact of nature as gravity is)? If not, why not?

I told you. Darwinism is a long-since discredited ancient pagan superstitious religious belief, with a new face painted on with big words meant to impress. I was once an atheist, evolutionist, communist, anarchist. The facts of science and history and logic took me to the Bible as the truth it is.

You can take an apple and drop it and demonstrate gravity. Breeding a cat from dog stock has never worked. Breeding a completely new form does not work. “Kinds”, or to use the paleontology term “forms”, have never been shown in the fossils to turn into other forms, except by the pure imagination of the believer, who in this case believes it by blind faith.

The gap between major forms in the fossils is wider than the space between clusters of galaxies, but in the fossils the vacuum doesn’t even have one atom floating around like there are in space vacuums.


More Embarrassments for Anti-Creationists

July 10, 2010

Another anti-creationist on an earlier post has graciously provided more examples of things that should embarrass believers in ancient pagan Darwinian myths.

Even if there were no fossils at all, there is enough evidence of many other types to clearly indicate humans share common ancestry with monkeys and other living things. Nested hierarchies of many different types of data produce the same tree of life predicted and explained by evolution. Endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes at the same locations in DNA of different species show the expected degree of relationship expected and predicted by other evidence.

There you have one just-so statement there followed by two actual references to biology.

The “nested hierarchies” are simply categories of living things by one or another criteria that conveniently group living things. These animals have backbones, these don’t. So what? You have the supposed extinct fish that lasted awhile out of water in the fossils, big deal, Australia had the lungfish in the encyclopedia when I was a kid before most of the readers of these words were born.

Linnaeus already gave us the major classifications. He was a creationist by the way, just like the great scientists of yester-year that were the pioneers of today’s major areas of study.

“Endogenous retroviruses”, for those who haven’t heard yet, are taken by Darwinians to be evidence of humans and apes inheriting the same DNA damage from a common ancestor.

That’s nothing new though. They said we shared 98 percent of our DNA with chimps, then they said, well, maybe it’s 95 percent, and now it turns out looking like less. The 98 percent figure stuck, because they discarded all the stuff that didn’t fit what they wanted to find.

So now get what they call a “pseudo-gene” stuck in the same place on a chromosome as on a monkey and they say see, common ancestor! I mean, it’s a good example of how Darwinian dogmas stunt science research!

Hey, ever hear of “bird flu”? That’s a virus that makes birds sick and die and it hits us too. Every hear of “swine flu”? Ever hear of “the bubonic plague”, carried by rats into Europe? Yep, viruses affect more than one species often, and I’d be surprised if there isn’t some effect from the plague of the middle ages embedded in the entire human genome.

One source makes the claim flat-out that “Some 8% of human DNA represents fossil retroviral genomes”.

The fact is, though, in spite of getting slowed down by Darwinoid thinking, biologists keep discovering things in spite of that contradict Darwinian “predictions”, and now they’re finding the power of epigenetics, and the fact that indeed the environment can affect the genome of future offspring in a species pool, and a long list of other surprises that caused one biologist to say they were getting depressed because they were going to have to start all over.

It just shows that despite all the outright emphatic declarations of spontaneous biogenesis and common descent, and claims of predictions, the only time they ever made a prediction supposedly based on common descent that proved true, it was the same thing predicted by common creation.

I mean, “pseudogenes”? Didn’t they learn anything from the “vestigial organs” folly? With at least 32 human organs declared “vestigial” in the 20th century, meaning useless leftovers from “evolutionary history”, every one of them has proven to have vital functions. You can live without your tailbone but they tell me it makes a mess in the bathroom. You can live without your appendix but then take much longer to bounce back from digestive illness. On and on, how many people died and how much was medical advances kept back because of this lunacy?

The instant my eyes fell on a headline where I first saw the words “vestigial DNA”, I laughed out loud and told everybody I knew. Little old me, country bumpkin they think creationists are, and I knew they would eat their words, poor victims of their ancient mythology.

It didn’t take them as long as it did with the “vestigial organs” though.

Got news for you, viruses carry genetic material around from one species to another too. Orchids that bear color patterns that simulate the colors of the bees they like for pollination, for example. Genetic transference it’s called, fascinating.

Just another adaptive mechanism in the toolbox of the automating lean mean computing machine in every cell in your body. Biologists are already beginning to admit that it is looking not like cells are hit willy-nilly by random mutation events that improve things, but that there are genetic algorithms in place to take advantage of limited genetic experimentation with borrowed genes, mutations, and of course a ready supply of “vestigial DNA” that it turns out is not vestigial but is a shelf full of spare parts to try out in times of need.

Certainly like the Psalmist said, we are wonderfully made.

As for fossils, Tiktaalik is a spectacular example of the predictive power of evolution, found in rocks of exactly the right age and type expected to contain fossils of the fish to land animals transition. Going the other way, we’ve found fossils of whales with legs! Also, the older hominid fossils show more ape-like features with a clear progression to more human-like features the more recent the fossils are, exactly as predicted and expected. So much so, that even some creationists can’t decide whether particular hominids are of the ape “kind” or the human “kind.”

Yeah hominids. After (1) the Piltdown fraud made fools of all Darwinists for a generation, after (2) three slivers of bone found hundreds of feet apart in some spring in Nebraska and somebody called it Nebraska man, and (3) some guy named Dawson didn’t want anybody else looking at his “find”, and (4) the pre-hominid “hobbits” in Indonesia turn out to be just a few small Homo sapiens folks, we are supposed to just play stupid and just swallow whatever other fairy tale you push?

Darwinists were just as sure about those, before. Well, now comes the director of a natural museum in Germany some years back and said they should stop fooling people and go ahead and dress their Neanderthal Man displays with suits and ties because they’re just like us.


Answers to Monotonous Anti-Creation Cliches

July 3, 2010

Knocking down Darwinian props one by one…

>>…Regarding your anecdotes about how the faith of individuals is affected by the origins debate, I don’t doubt the accuracy of those stories. However, for every one of those I suspect there are dozens to thousands that cut the other way. They are an interesting, and important, sidebar. But they aren’t pertinent to the basic questions.

Sure there are billions in the earth who now doubt the Bible because of the non-stop relentless indoctrination of their teachers who told them “science” (the ancient pagan Darwinian myth) contradicted it, versus dozens to thousands of SCIENTISTS confronted with real world facts that compel the willing to accept Biblical truth. Creationism is growing lots faster than the long-ages myths.

To say that is not pertinent to the basic question of either the “origins debate” or sharing our faith is a preposterous illogical declaration.

Creation-deniers provide an excellent catalyst for sharing the truth. I hate lies, and Darwinism is The Big Lie of today. Not for nothing Mao Tse-Tung’s first priority in schools when he took China was not Marxism, but it was Darwinian evolution. It is the denial of the God of the Bible, because the truth of the Creation and the Resurrection is dangerous to atheism, paganism, communism, socialism, and every other tyrannical philosophy.

“Neither give place to the devil”. Subtle sideswipes and bigger broadsides against YEC and YECs and at the Bible text at face value (despite the ritual obligatory disclaimers to the contrary) with me are like saying “sic’ em” to a dog. Arf arf. Protecting the gullible from the Big Lie.

>>You said, “You have to torture the evidence and cover up the physical evidence to say the earth is so many billions of years old anyway. That would be crazy!”… ..There is abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth. If there weren’t such evidence, the debate on this issue would not be sustainable. Possibly the current theories will prove to be wrong at some point in the future. But until they are it isn’t at all helpful to summarily dismiss them with inferences about conspiracy theories.

Using the old facile “conspiracy theories” canard gets you a loss of at lest ten points on the credibility scale.

And who told you “summarily”? It took me years of open-minded following of evidence to find out that the taxpayer-financed government indoctrination centers had been lying to me for sixteen years!

Using the same logic, without the abundant evidence for YEC and that old-earthers are torturing the physical evidence makes the debate sustainable against OEC.

–And if there were so much “abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth” as versus YEC evidence then tell us… Why do the most prominent scientists who believe in the ancient pagan old-earth myth pee in their pants in horror at the prospect of an actual fair debate with a YEC scientist?

In the anti-creationist book “Science and Creationism”, the editor Ashley Montague said he put together this anthology of essays by their “big guns” because he was totally humiliated in a debate he took with an unnamed creation scientist. He didn’t say it that way but that’s what he said. At the time I was still under some trepidation, thinking maybe there was some science unknown to me on the subject. The book actually took me from firm to rock-solid convinced in YEC.

>>As I said, “Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the gospel defined to include a particular view on the process or dating of material creation”.

Repetition is no argument against the fact that the first chapter of the New Testament and the 3rd chapter of Luke repeat the genealogies of Jesus Christ Our Lord straight back in linear fashion to Adam himself, and notes that Adam’s parentage points to God. This is a reference to the Garden of Eden as a real-world fact, and the reference to Noah in their points to the Flood.

Besides which, Jesus said God made male and female, he didn’t say it just happened.

And don’t give us the condescending clap trap about God had to speak in terms of the ancients. The Old Earth Myth is an ancient myth, one shared by Hindus and Buddhists and Humanists and many other such religions. But God chose to tell the truth, how about that.

Everything was created before Adam, when the genealogies began. There are very legitimate language questions about the time interval from verse 1 to verse 3, that is if you insist on an interpretation based on a modernist focus on material origins. But there is also a very credible interpretation based on the cultural context of ancient cosmology that focuses on functional origins. There are just too many open questions on G1 to take a dogmatic position on age.

The “Gap Theory” so-called is a totally new myth invented by men who preferred to put their trust in men whose breath is in his nostrils than to put their trust in the eternal God, even though the Bible has made fools of its deniers for millennia. It was invented to cover for God’s obvious YEC message in Genesis, for people who didn’t want to give up their faith, and it was “popularized” by Bible-hater Darby in England and Cyrus Scofield the convicted swindler in the United States, followed by too many wannabes.

The most important Christian dogma is that the Bible is the Truth, period, end of point, no if’s and’s or but’s. There is so much overwhelming real-world evidence of this that anyone seeking the truth will find it.

> My point in this entire discussion is not to take a position for or against the global flood interpretation, but to simply point out that there are sufficient interpretative and technical questions to caution against a dogmatic position. The word ‘world’ or ‘earth’, as I pointed our below is not determinative, due to its varied uses. There are the possibilities of land bridge collapses at the Bosporus or Gibraltar. The flood occurred prior to Babel, so it’s possible that all of life was still in a relatively concentrated ‘region’. And of course there are all of the many technical questions about water volume and population logistics on the ark.

Watch out when they claim to be arguing for a “neutral” point of view. There is no such thing. Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. The truth is not a neutral position between two opposing viewpoints.

It’s a dogmatic position to insist that the Bible is ambiguous where it obviously is not. Like trying to say “day” doesn’t mean “day”, or claiming that there is enough ambiguity between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 to cram billions of years in there! It’s laughable, and no wonder atheists have a field day rejoicing over how Christians are trying to put their own pagan myths into the Bible.

>>The bottom line is that the flood was what it was, and the biblical testimony is attesting to what it was in the linguistic and cultural context of the biblical authors and audiences. Whether the flood was actually regional or global has no bearing on the validity of that testimony. Either way, the testimony is true and accurate in its ancient context.

Whether the narrative of the Flood is true to fact or not has “no bearing on the validity of that testimony”??! Wow. That’s amazing. It exposes the bias of summarily dismissing anything the Bible says if some self-arrogant “scientist” says it’s wrong.

Anyway, why would one want to play the fool just because the smarter-than-thou” crowd does? Why deny the physical evidence and agree with the foolish idea that the world is billions of years old just because some people who hated the Bible invented their own new variation on ancient pagan myths? Myths that were discredited long ago? Why should we be like dogs and return to the same vomit of ancient pagan myths like Darwinism?

No matter how much indoctrination they foist on the unsuspecting, pretending that their origins myth is something new from science, they cannot escape the fact that long ages for earth, the universe, and life on earth are ancient pagan myths. The ancient Hebrews knew intimately of them. It is a historically illiterate argument to say they would not have understood long ages. God told them, and us, the truth.

1. What ‘yom’ means in terms of our literal concept of time. There is more than one reasonable option on this question.

It’s mind-boggling that anti-creationists still use the word “day” in Genesis to defend themselves.

But now they’ll have to explain why plants lasted millions of years on the earth before land animals, they have to explain how there was night and day for how many eons before there was a sun. Putting millions or billions of years for “day” in Genesis One makes it a much greater super-miracle than the Biblical one they deny. The real-world question is, why would God take so long to make everything?

Note that the proponents of billion-year “days” never bother with “the evening and morning were the first day”.. “…the second day..” and “the third day”… The emphasis on the 24-hour day is manifold and does not rest on the meaning of “day”. Ask a Hebrew scholar whether “evening and morning” are a 24-hour day or whether it’s a million-year epoch.

And add to all that the ordinal nature of the list! The “first day”, “second day”, and so on– just adds emphasis to the clear meaning of the passage.

Claiming that Genesis One is a literal description of long-ages universe is so ridiculous that it is a much better argument to try to claim it’s not about Creation, or it’s symbolic or something.

2. The grammatical structure for 1:1-2 is disputed around 2-3 possibilities. Individual Hebrew scholars may prefer one option or the other, but virtually all acknowledge we can’t know with certainty what was grammatically intended.

That assertion is clearly contradicted by the fact that virtually all Orthodox Jewish scholars, with the rare exception, agree among themselves that they are certain about “what was grammatically intended”. Apparently you’ve been reading too much anti-creationist stuff out there where they state things as if they are just-so and fall right into the same pit.

3. A compelling case has been made that Genesis 1 is written in the context of ancient cosmology because that is the way it would have made sense to the original author and audience.

Again, that is a historically illiterate Big Lie by the crowd that hates the Bible, and is so easily refuted it is incredible how many people love to buy into it, as I stated above.

It came straight from the mouths of the smarter-than-thou academics who hate the Bible with a passion and see things through their own religious dogma that the Bible is myth. Sounds like something the misnamed “Jesus Seminar” babblers would come up with, who only got notice because their fellow Jesus-haters in big-name magazines like Time just loved anything that contradicted the Bible.

That was before we had the Internet as a forum to expose the stark-naked emperor. That’s why they are trying to figure out ways to shut us down. Senator Lieberman the other day praised the law giving Obama (and any other president) the authorization to just shut down the Internet, which also includes a clause immunizing telecommunications companies from any lawsuit that arises from any cooperation with the federal government. Lieberman says China has that capability so we shouldn’t worry about it.

Maybe we’re closer to the global dictatorship of The Beast than many think we are.

If Americans don’t yell it down with a roar, we’ll soon enough get another Gulf of Tonkin incident that will provide an excuse to shut down the Internet. Bush said they would not tolerate any conspiracy theories, but they are looking for a way to quash them.

The hard dogmatic position is held by anti-creationists who dogmatically and stubbornly hold to the dogma of radioisotope dating. One creationist who happened to get a course in geological dating reports the professor saying that their radioisotope dating (of billions of years) requires a total of no less that 22 assumptions.

Dogmatic pronouncements against “aspersions on alternative views on the dating of the original material creation are unwarranted” indeed.

Simply repeating ad infinitum that Genesis One does not mean what it says, is no argument at all. YEC scientists in this debate are the ones that keep pointing to science, while it is the creation-deniers and design-deniers that want to keep talking about religion.

Creation-denying pagan scientists can censor creation all they want from the oligarch-approved publications, they can censor countering evidence all they want from government indoctrination centers, they can keep publishing blatant lies in biology textbooks, they can deny tenure and deny research funds from science concerns that are open-minded on the origins questions.

But they have a problem with the Internet being so uncontrolled.

Beware of sneak attacks on the Internet. Whether they are from the big players or not.