Age of the universe - General Discussion - Third Millennium Discussion Groups - Third Millennium Ministries Discussion Forums - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Goldberry of Withywindle	But we aren't left with....	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 04/13/06 16:07:02	reasoning from the current behavior of light to the apparent age of light. We are explicitly told that God created light before He created anything else. So I don't think it raises that particular conundrum. That some light was created ex nihilo without emanating from light-generating sources is not merely required to justify the six day interpretation, as though it was made up later to solve the problem, it is an actual part of the six day interpretation -- it says it right there in scripture. If the "it says it right there in scripture" method is in fact the valid one, then light ex nihilo is not at all confusing -- it's explicitly stated. ~Jane~ Suddenly I was abuzz with ideas. What about issuing stickers printed with the words, "This apostrophe is not necessary"? What about telling people to shin up ladders at dead of night with an apostrophe-shaped stencil and a tin of paint? Why did the Apostrophe Protection Society not have a militant wing? Could I start one? Where do you get balaclavas? -- Eats, Shoots, and Leaves
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	But by that interpretation	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/13/06 21:20:51	we are still left with these two seemingly contrary facts: 1. God created the visible stars to shed light on the earth. 2. Most visible stars never have and never will shed any light on the earth (unless the second coming is many billions of years in the future).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: But by that interpretation	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/14/06 12:03:24	*Quote:* Most visible stars never have and never will shed any light on the earth (unless the second coming is many billions of years in the future). Do you mean because under a young earth interpretation the light never actually emanated from those distant stars and the text seems to imply that that is their primary purpose? Some (perhaps) interesting footnotes: we are in an outer arm of the Milky Way galaxy, which contains about 200 to 400 billion stars. Since the galaxy is about 80,000 light years across, even the light emanated by most of the stars within our own galaxy would not have reached us yet if the earth were 10,000 years old. The nearest galaxies to our own are the satellites of the Milky way, each of which is at least 25,000 light years away. To get an idea of how many galaxies (large collections of stars) there are out there, check out this long-exposure image taken by the Hubble Telescope. It covers an area of sky that is the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length. Finally, here is a collection of some of my favorite space photos (including that image from the Hubble).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: But by that interpretation	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/17/06 12:09:55	*Quote:* Do you mean because under a young earth interpretation the light never actually emanated from those distant stars and the text seems to imply that that is their primary purpose? Yes.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	Me no understand.	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 04/15/06 09:33:08	How can they be visible stars if their light never reaches the earth? I mean, yeah, if they are too many light years away, then their light would never each the earth in a given amount of time. But we all agree that we can see them, so how is it that their light has never reached the earth? Either way, whether the earth is a jillion years old, or whether the light we see was created ex nihilo, while generated light continues to work its way toward us, we do see them. As for what would happen to them if the earth didn't last that long -- I don't think it's true that the creation will be obliterated at the eschaton. But even if their light never does get to earth, so what? What we see when we look at the stars serves the purpose of the stars being in the Heavens to declare God's glory, whether the light was specially created, or emanated. Or so ISTM. ~Jane~ Suddenly I was abuzz with ideas. What about issuing stickers printed with the words, "This apostrophe is not necessary"? What about telling people to shin up ladders at dead of night with an apostrophe-shaped stencil and a tin of paint? Why did the Apostrophe Protection Society not have a militant wing? Could I start one? Where do you get balaclavas? -- Eats, Shoots, and Leaves
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: Me no understand.	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/17/06 12:28:52	The young earth interpretation of general and special revelation seems to require that light be attributed to stars even though it never actually came from the stars. This would be miraculous, and it is certainly within the realm of things God can do. But it doesn't seem to do justice to the purpose of the stars. And it also doesn't seem to be implied by the text itself. The text seems to say that lights shine, and then we see them. It doesn't seem to envision a world in which the light from the stars takes any time to get to us. There are a number of ways to handle this. One is to say its a metaphor. Another is to say that science is wrong, that light really does get to us rather immediately. Another is to say that the text is simply phenomenological -- a pre-scientific description of observable reality. A phenomenological interpretation could be part of a young-earth interpretation or an old-earth interpretation, whereas the other explanations are more limited.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	Another possibility might be...	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 04/18/06 08:47:17	that since the earth was created as the home of man, and the stars exist to give light to the earth, it's not unreasonable to give the stars a little "boost" of specially created light so that man can derive the benefit of the stars despite it taking time for the light to reach us ordinarily. But my question was really, how can they be "visible stars" if the light has not yet reached us? The only way something can be visible is if the light reflected or generated by the object reaches our eyes. So the whoe concept of "visible stars whose light has not yet reached us" utterly confuses me. ~Jane~ Suddenly I was abuzz with ideas. What about issuing stickers printed with the words, "This apostrophe is not necessary"? What about telling people to shin up ladders at dead of night with an apostrophe-shaped stencil and a tin of paint? Why did the Apostrophe Protection Society not have a militant wing? Could I start one? Where do you get balaclavas? -- Eats, Shoots, and Leaves
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	hard to describe	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/18/06 12:07:48	Well, that's part of the problem of talking about "seeing" anything in space. What we're actually seeing is light that emanated from an object that used to be there, but that may since have moved or even been destroyed. I simply meant that, phenomenologically, we can "see" the stars. But in point of fact, if God created light in transit from stars billions of light years away, there would be little reason to create the stars themselves. After all, we will never actually see any of the light from those stars. The only light the world will ever receive is the light that was created in transit.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
deins	Biblical Authority	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 348 04/13/06 22:05:32	Jane, Keep up the good work. Ultimately, it's not an issue of light from the stars anyway - it's an issue of biblical authority as the blurb below states. Liberalism usually starts in the seminary and the pulpit - not the pew. Then when you come on to internet discussion forums and disagree unbendingly and call unbelief what it is, you get publicly rebuked by easily irritated pontificates who contradict the Word and yet want to accuse others of arrogance. I'm with you all the way girl. Semper Reformanda. Ra by the way has exemplified Christian patience and gentleness with me on this forum which is a strong indication to me that he truly belongs in the ministry as opposed to someone like myself who can be a bit of an inciter. John Frame also strikes me as a sweet man. A young Earthits not the issue! By Ken Ham First published in: January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as young Earthers. The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the old Earthers (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many conservative Christians) who appeal to what they call science, versus the young Earthers, who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed scientific evidence for an old Earth. I want to make it VERY clear that we dont want to be known primarily as young-Earth creationists. AiGs main thrust is NOT young Earth as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively young Earth (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator. Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe? The answer from this scholar? Absolutely not! Lets be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You cant find any hint at all for millions or billions of years. For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Creation magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they dont believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called science that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture. When someone says to me, Oh, so youre one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists, I reply, Actually, Im a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist! (which means Im a young-Earth creationist!). Heres what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sinthis is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noahs day). Also, the word for day in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information]. Thus, as a revelationist, I let Gods Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bibles genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with mans ideas about the age of the universe. And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.] Question: Why would any Christian want to take mans fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that mans word is infallible, but Gods Word is fallible! This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept mans fallible dating methods to interpret Gods Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible cant be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on Gods Word. Once this door has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible. You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the worlds teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret Gods Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality. Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from Gods Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept mans dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bibles authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America. So, the issue is not young Earth versus old Earth, but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God? A young-Earth view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. Compared to what God knows, we know next door to nothing! This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on Gods Word. Its also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that knowledge puffeth up. Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the worlds fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible. At Answers in Genesis, we believe this message needs to be proclaimed to the Church as a challenge to return to Biblical authority, and thus stand tall in the world for the accuracy of Gods Word. Ultimately, this is the only way we are going to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel message. Lets start 1998 by putting more and more pressure on our Christian leaders to take a long, hard look at how they are approaching the question of the authority of the Bible! Please help us fulfill our mission statement: to bring about reformation in the Church!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: But we aren't left with....	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/16/06 20:16:46	*Quote:* But we aren't left with reasoning from the current behavior of light to the apparent age of light. We are explicitly told that God created light before He created anything else. So I don't think it raises that particular conundrum. Agreed. What I was trying to articulate is that it's not the existence of light that leads toward that conundrum, but the informational content of that light. Namely, the light seems to show the universe at different ages a different depths, and it seems that we can even see the processes by which stars, galaxies, and planets form by looking at these different depths. Some young earth views accept that the light was created in medias res but deny the accuracy of the informational content of that light. That's what seems to me to lead to the conundrum. Do you see it differently? (Another footnote to this discussion: Certainly, our understanding of the heavens is imperfect. There are few branches of science in which yesterday's theory about some particular phenomenon [say, the internal contents of a comet] is overturned more frequently than in cosmology and astrophysics. Even so, the "broad strokes" of discipline that I have been writing about here generally have a strong body of evidence collected over a goodly amount of time in support of them.) *Quote:* That some light was created ex nihilo without emanating from light-generating sources is not merely required to justify the six day interpretation, as though it was made up later to solve the problem, it is an actual part of the six day interpretation -- it says it right there in scripture. I didn't mean to imply that young earth creationism made it up in order to fit scientific data. (See above.) Sorry for the miscommunication.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	Yes, I see it differently, because....	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 04/18/06 08:53:06	your method assumes we have to look at things and judge their ages, and that tells us their apparent ages. Therefore, that causes a conflict. I am saying that the Word that tells us how things were created tells us their ages -- that is, the ages of those things that were created at that time, as opposed to the ages of things that were generated later by the mechanisms inaugurated at creation. It explains away the conflict, by simply asserting that it was an exception to what we might figure if we judged for ourselves -- this is how it did, in fact, happen. I don't think that denies the informational accuracy of light in general; it just creates an exception. Adam being created out of the ground as an apparently adult man does not undermine the informational accuracy of studies of reproduction and growth; it was an initial exception. ~Jane~ Suddenly I was abuzz with ideas. What about issuing stickers printed with the words, "This apostrophe is not necessary"? What about telling people to shin up ladders at dead of night with an apostrophe-shaped stencil and a tin of paint? Why did the Apostrophe Protection Society not have a militant wing? Could I start one? Where do you get balaclavas? -- Eats, Shoots, and Leaves
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: Yes, I see it differently, because....	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/20/06 19:47:32	It's a fair point. I still tend to favor an old earth in conjunction with the framework interpretation for the reasons mentioned previously (in this context, particularly the "I could have done it this way, but didn't" reason), but like the PCA as a denomination, I can appreciate the other views, too.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Tom	I favour the Young Earth View	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5 04/27/06 20:13:02	One of the main reasons why I believe in a young earth is how the Hebrew word Yom (day) is used in Genesis chapter one. Consider the following. Normally "yom" is used in Scripture to mean a 24 hour day. But there are exceptions such as Is. 61:2 where it is used for longer periods of time. Or in the case of Genesis 2:4, where it is used as an idiom "when". However, in Genesis chapter one it must be interpreted as a 24 hour period. 1.) Elsewhere, whenever "yom" is used with a number, it means 24 hour periods. 2.) The Decalogue bases the teaching of the Sabbath day on the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. 3.) From the 4th day on, there are days, years, signs and seasons, suggesting that the normal system (24 hour day) is entirely operative. 4.) If "yom" refers to an age, then the text would have to allow for a period of "night". But few would argue for the night as an age. It seems inescapable that Genesis presents the creation in six days. (From Creation & Blessing 'A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis by Allen P. Ross Page 109) I see no reason to believe that we shouldnt interpret yom in Genesis 1 as a 24 hour period, if we are consistent with the rest of Scripture.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: I favour the Young Earth View	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/28/06 11:42:01	*Quote:* However, in Genesis chapter one it must be interpreted as a 24 hour period. The framework view does not deny this. In fact, the framework view affirms it. But it takes the whole passage as a conceit, an extended metaphor. For the sake of comparison, consider the way parables work. In the parable of the sower, it is clear that the word "seed" means seed. Jesus is talking about a person sowing seeds. But his point is not about seeds, it is about the gospel. So, the word should be translated as "seed," but it must be interpreted as "the gospel of the kingdom." In a similar way, the framework view translates yom as "day," but it interprets it as something else.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Tom	Re: I favour the Young Earth View	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5 05/01/06 20:43:12	[quote]The framework view does not deny this. In fact, the framework view affirms it. But it takes the whole passage as a conceit, an extended metaphor. For the sake of comparison, consider the way parables work. In the parable of the sower, it is clear that the word "seed" means seed. Jesus is talking about a person sowing seeds. But his point is not about seeds, it is about the gospel. So, the word should be translated as "seed," but it must be interpreted as "the gospel of the kingdom." In a similar way, the framework view translates yom as "day," but it interprets it as something else.[/quote] I like your arguement, however in the case of the seed, it is obvious that the word "seed" is a metiphor. Where in Genesis do you get the idea that the word "day" is a metiphor for something else. Please include, what you believe that something else is.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: I favour the Young Earth View	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 494 05/02/06 06:57:17	I answer this as a young-earther, who believes "yom" in Gen. 1 means a 24-hour day. But the framework people are not treating Gen. 1 as an allegory, in which every element or word of the text has a specific referent to some other specific thing. Instead, as Ra pointed out, it is an extended metaphor -- the passage as a whole teaches God's creative power, etc., without saying anything about the length of a "yom." It's similar to Jesus' parables. Think about the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32). There is an overall point to the parable, but we are not to try to find hidden meanings in every detail of the parable (for example, we don't try to figure out what the "herbs" represent when Jesus says "it is greater than the herbs", or even try to figure out why Jesus used a "mustard" seed as opposed to some other tiny seed -- the emphasis is on the size of the seed, not the specific kind of seed). Likewise, the framework folks don't believe we are supposed to assign some specific meaning to "yom" or try to figure out how long a "yom" was. Instead, we are to see the passage as a whole and learn from that. Again, I don't agree with this view, but I believe that is how the framework people look at the issue. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: I favour the Young Earth View	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 05/05/06 21:18:35	*Quote:* Where in Genesis do you get the idea that the word "day" is a metiphor for something else. You can find more detailed descriptions of the framework theory and related links in the earlier posts in this thread. The exegetical case is made succinctly here and at ThirdMill (part 1, part 2). A summary of the latter is as follows (emphasis added to contrast the old earth framework theory with the young earth light-created-in-medias-res theory): *Quote:* In 1958 the Westminster Theological Journal published Because It Had Not Rained, an exegetical study of Gen 2:5 by Meredith G. Kline. The article demonstrated that according to Gen 2:5 ordinary providence was God's mode of operation during the days of creation. Since God's mode of operation was ordinary providence, and since, for example, light (Day 1) without luminaries (Day 4) is not ordinary providence, the arrangement of the six days of creation in Genesis 1 must be topical not chronological. The current article is complementary to Kline's. Why does Gen 2:5 bother to tell us that certain kinds of vegetation were absent for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth? This question has intrigued and perplexed me for some time. Is the absence of rain mere geographical decoration or quasi-irrelevant data that sets the stage for the really important material that follows? Or is this information that is foundational to the narrative and its theology? The answer to this question has played a major role in my interpretation of Gen 1:1-2:25. In this article I intend to examine the logic, structure, and semantics of Gen 2:5-7, and to draw out several integrated conclusions: 1) It rained at the time of creation according to Gen 2:5-7. So we should discard the idea that the Bible teaches that it did not rain until the flood of Noahs day. 2) The structure of Gen 2:5-7 provides the key to understanding the structure of the whole of Gen 2:4-25, which turns out to be topical not chronological. 3) The structure and topical arrangement of Gen 2:4-25 in turn supports the argument that the arrangement of Gen 1:1-2:3 is also topical not chronological. 4) These structural considerations lead to new insights into the polemical theology of Genesis 1-2. Genesis 1-2, serves among other purposes, as a polemic against Canaanite Baalism. In sum, Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3 are topical accounts that polemicize against Baalism, because it had rained. Moreover, Futato discusses the meaning of yom and the nature of the starlight (a topic on which we dwelt at some length above) (emphasis added again): *Quote:* The parallelism between Days 1 and 4 goes beyond the general correspondence between the creation of light on Day 1 and the creation of the luminaries on Day 4. What did God accomplish on Day 1 by means of the creation of light? God divided the light from the darkness (wayyabde-l elo-hm bn ha- r bn ha-h.o-sek), and the result was day (ym) and night (layl). So by the end of Day 1 God had successfully divided the light from the darkness and established the sequence of day and night. Now, what was God's purpose in creating the luminaries on Day 4? We are given a variety of purposes, e.g., they will serve as signs and will rule the day and the night. But what is the overarching purpose? The overarching purpose is indicated by the repetition of to divide (lehabdl) in v14 and v18, a repetition that forms an inclusio around Day 4. In v14 we are told that God created the luminaries to divide the day from the night (lehabdl bn hayym bn hallayl). But God had already divided the day from the night on Day 1! In v18 we are told that God created the luminaries to divide the light from the darkness (lehabdl bn ha- r bn hah. o -sek). But God had already divided the light from the darkness on Day 1! These linguistic parallels between Day 1 and Day 4 must not be overlooked. Either God's work on Day 4 is redundant, reaccomplishing the same thing he had already accomplished on Day 1, or the accounts of God's work on Days 1 and 4 are two different perspectives on the same creative work. ... One might object that had Moses wished to represent Gen 1:14-31 as an overlay of Gen 1:3-13 he would have begun v14 with the expected we elo -hm a-mar (waw+subject+predicate), and that the use of the waw-relative indicates that the events of Day 4 are temporally sequential to those of Days 1 through 3. But as we have already noted, the waw-relative (here wayyo - mer) can be used for temporal overlay when either lexical repetition or knowledge of the real world signals such an overlay. Here both criteria are met: lexical repetitions abound between Day 1 and Day 4, and light without luminaries is not part of the real world in which the original audience lived. See footnote 50 on the objection that the light of God's glory was in view on Day 1.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Age of the universe	04/01/06 11:26:47	Matthaeus Flexibilis
Re: Age of the universe	04/01/06 12:25:29	rodkirby
point of clarification, and a little more	04/03/06 10:47:53	ramclaughlin
Re: Age of the universe	04/04/06 23:18:00	Matthaeus Flexibilis
Re: Age of the universe	04/05/06 11:09:20	deins
Re: Age of the universe	04/05/06 11:22:35	ramclaughlin
Miracles	04/05/06 11:42:23	deins
Are you asking me or Matt?	04/05/06 12:07:09	ramclaughlin
Questions were for any replies...	04/05/06 12:13:09	deins
Re: Miracles	04/08/06 13:59:15	Matthaeus Flexibilis
Re: Miracles	04/08/06 21:34:50	deins
Re: Miracles	04/09/06 09:50:00	Matthaeus Flexibilis
Re: Age of the universe	04/07/06 23:17:49	Matthaeus Flexibilis
Re: Another thought on light in medias res	04/13/06 11:49:10	Matthaeus Flexibilis
But we aren't left with....	04/13/06 16:07:02	Goldberry of Withywindle
But by that interpretation	04/13/06 21:20:51	ramclaughlin
Re: But by that interpretation	04/14/06 12:03:24	Matthaeus Flexibilis
Re: But by that interpretation	04/17/06 12:09:5