Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert E. Hall who wrote (9062)	10/23/1997 12:39:00 PM
From: Lee Bush	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 39621

Robert: How can you be so certain that the 1000 years mentioned is not literal? I do not insist that it be literal, but I don't see any problem with there being a 1000 year period. It matters little at this point seems to me. We will know more when we get into that period. The Scriptures certainly give evidence of using literal periods of time, such as the 70 years in captivity, as well as symbolic time, such as the final week in Daniel. So, I can accept it either way. Actually, being a geographer and acquainted with the geologic record of the earth and having taught at the university level, I am persuaded that the earth is much older than the strict creationists would hold to. I see no conflict with the geologic record and what is recorded in Genesis. So long as we all agree that GOD CREATED IT HIS WAY, we have no serious problem. I do have a problem with 'brainwashing' kids to accept strict creationism because once they get into college and begin to study subjects such as geography, geology, astronomy, physics, they find themselves in very deep water indeed trying to reconcile these teachings with what they are confronting. This results often in the student 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater.' I expect some interesting replies to this post. Lee

To: Robert E. Hall who wrote (9062)	10/24/1997 9:47:00 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

Can a nation be antichrist or are only individuals pro- or anti- Christ? BTW. I saw the comments of Mr. Farakahn in print the other day relating to the promise keepers -- he said, "Jesus Christ can't provide you any guidance today ..." Talk about false prophet and antichrist. In the same paper our Vice President was quoted as saying what a wonderful thing Ellen's "coming out" was! Such inflammatory and patently incorrect and harmful statements (1st statement above) get free press today. But if someone famous were to say "Jesus Christ is the only one that can provide you with the guidance that you need today" would that be printed in a newspaper? What is good and newsworthy is not printed. What is vile and ought to be hidden seems to be exalted as good.