John 10:16 - interpretations?

Dan of Louisiana said:
There are flaws with radiocarbon dating, and it's well-known. I tried to post a link to support this but I have to wait until my 10th post here to post that link.
Click to expand...
Indeed, there are flaws in radiocarbon dating. Pando isn't dated by this method.

Why is it important to you how old I think the world is?
Click to expand...
I was asking if you had considered Pando in your conclusion. How open are you in your consideration? Do you only consider evidence that fits your preconceived conclusion? Are you after victory instead of truth?
 
"How open are you in your consideration? Do you only consider evidence that fits your preconceived conclusion? Are you after victory instead of truth?"

--> Well said! I am reminded of the difference between education and propoganda. Education takes us wherever truth and knowledge takes us. Propoganda only takes us in one direction.
 
seattlegal said:
Do you only consider evidence that fits your preconceived conclusion?
Click to expand...

Not at all, it took a while for me to reach the point where I am. Unfortunately, I cannot provide links until my tenth post to support my positions. I am def not gonna copy/paste from these places. Too much info.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
I am reminded of the difference between education and propoganda. Education takes us wherever truth and knowledge takes us. Propoganda only takes us in one direction.
Click to expand...

My opinion is just that. My opinion. Just because it isn't the same as yours does not make it propaganda.
 
bob x said:
And blowing off the findings of everyone who has devoted their lives to figuring these things out; this is the opposite of "educating" yourself.
Click to expand...

I have not blown anyone off. I have read the arguments for both and came to a decision about what I believe.

By the way, you are quick to "blow off" evidence that doesn't fit your opinions. Just an observation.
 
seattlegal said:
Indeed, there are flaws in radiocarbon dating. Pando isn't dated by this method.


I was asking if you had considered Pando in your conclusion. How open are you in your consideration? Do you only consider evidence that fits your preconceived conclusion? Are you after victory instead of truth?
Click to expand...


There are also flaws in tree ring dating as well. Even the article you posted hints that "if" the date is correct.
 
Dan of Louisiana said:
You say your mind is open, but then when I say that the world isn't as old as you think it is, you blow off my opinion like it isn't founded. I am 39 and my opinion on this isssue has been changed before. Google "radiocarbon dating flaws" and tell me if you believe anyone knowsh
Click to expand...

Defensive are we? I'm here to discuss and have no interest in judging your opinions. I'm interested in the questions I bring up, questions like why we believe the way we do, how different people are. But fine, I'll just stick to another part of interfaith.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Defensive are we? I'm here to discuss and have no interest in judging your opinions. I'm interested in the questions I bring up, questions like why we believe the way we do, how different people are. But fine, I'll just stick to another part of interfaith.
Click to expand...


You can ask me whatever you like. I was just curious of why you say my mind is shut and I am blowing things off while you do the same.
 
Dan of Louisiana said:
I have not blown anyone off. I have read the arguments for both and came to a decision about what I believe.
Click to expand...

Hi Dan, something I have never understood about the 7,000-year-old earth view and literal 7-day creation belief is: how do dinosaurs fit into that theory?

If animals were created on the 5th day (Genesis 1:20-23) and humans on the 6th day (Genesis 1:26-31), what do you make of the fossil record?

Do you believe dinosaurs existed? When do you think they became extinct and why? Why do you think there is no mention of them in the bible?

You had asked why your opinion of the age of earth is important. In my opinion/experience, our views of how old the earth is shapes many other views in our life. It comes back to whether one has a literal view of the Bible (or other holy book), or a metaphorical view of holy books. A literal view of the Bible has many implications in how one views the world and other people/animals in the world.
 
IowaGuy said:
Hi Dan, something I have never understood about the 7,000-year-old earth view and literal 7-day creation belief is: how do dinosaurs fit into that theory?


Do you believe dinosaurs existed? When do you think they became extinct and why? Why do you think there is no mention of them in the bible?
Click to expand...

I don't know why the Bible doesn't mention them. There are many animals not mentioned in The Bible.

I don't really put too much thought into them really.
 
John 10:16 is a pretty solid text in the Greek, showing little textual change. Any version that has "fold" and "flock" (in that order) and uses "I" and "one" twice is not bad. One must realize both Ezekiel 34 (David verses) and Isaiah 40 (Shephard verses) must be kept in the background as they provided the context. Then it is a matter of interpretation.

I like the standard intra-Johnannine interpretation which blends this and 14:2 into a strongly universalist message (I also believe this to be one of the more traditional and conservative interpretations). Christ Jesus and the L!rd G!d are for everyone, of everytime, everywhere, period.

I do not believe a narrow interpretation ("but by my name") really is workable for a just and loving F!ther. Just because they had never heard the word, is everyone who was born before the NT was translated into their tongue to be kept eternally separated? That is neither just nor loving (IMHO).

Once we break out of the tribal notion of salvation, we may as well open redemption to all (of all time, of all nations, of all beliefs, of all worlds). The universalism of G!d demands not one iota less.

Now for my second point. Carbon-14 is not the only time-signature the L!rd left for us to read. Any nuclei with a "weak force" bonding (Be-10, Al-26, I-129, and any Uranium) can be (and has been) used for geological and cosmological dating. In addition, the Hubble constant and associated red shift can be used.

Please do not debate me on this, but unless one wants to ignore the scientific facts, the earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 10 billion years older. One does not have to believe this, but if one does not, it pretty much dulls the credence others will provide one's words (kind of like a parrot talking to a human being).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
Dan of Louisiana said:
There are also flaws in tree ring dating as well. Even the article you posted hints that "if" the date is correct.
Click to expand...
They weren't even dated by tree rings, either. Maybe I need to slow it down a bit. It might take a bit longer, because one must remember that the passage of time is relative to motion. ;) (Someone moving at near light speed would experience one day's passage of time, whereas someone moving somewhat slower would experience much more time during the same period.)
 
seattlegal said:
They weren't even dated by tree rings, either. Maybe I need to slow it down a bit. It might take a bit longer, because one must remember that the passage of time is relative to motion. ;) (Someone moving at near light speed would experience one day's passage of time, whereas someone moving somewhat slower would experience much more time during the same period.)
Click to expand...

The link you posted discussed the tree being dated by tree rings and radiocarbon dating.
 
radarmark said:
Carbon-14 is not the only time-signature the L!rd left for us to read. Any nuclei with a "weak force" bonding (Be-10, Al-26, I-129, and any Uranium) can be (and has been) used for geological and cosmological dating. In addition, the Hubble constant and associated red shift can be used.

Please do not debate me on this, but unless one wants to ignore the scientific facts, the earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 10 billion years older. One does not have to believe this, but if one does not, it pretty much dulls the credence others will provide one's words (kind of like a parrot talking to a human being).
Click to expand...

There is no dating system that is 100% accurate that we currently have. Shell fish that have been caught off the ocean floor have been dated at 400+years old...
 
So? If you look at my posting history, IMHO nothing (except the laws of deductive logic and arithmatic are absolutely true, meaning we can measure or predict with no-kidding 100% absolute knowledge). Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion.... it just is not scientifically even worth mentioning.

Pax at more omnia vincunt!
 
If you want to discuss pseudo-science to discuss young earth stuff, just start a tread, it really does not relate to John 10:16.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
radarmark said:
So? If you look at my posting history, IMHO nothing (except the laws of deductive logic and arithmatic are absolutely true, meaning we can measure or predict with no-kidding 100% absolute knowledge). Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion.... it just is not scientifically even worth mentioning.

Pax at more omnia vincunt!
Click to expand...

I have as many scientists saying what I am as you do saying what you are.

Apologetics Press - An Ancient Earth?...Well, Not Exactly

An article for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top