Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

282 days on and 83 days off - Reading the Old Testament through in a year

Reading all the way through the Old Testament in approximate chronological order

By your friendly neighborhood bloggerman, radar.   Do it with me?

Today's Scripture Reading

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

Day 8

Day 9

Day 10

Day 11

Day 12

Day 13

Day 14

Day 15

Day 16

Day 17

Day 18

Day 19

Day 20

Day 21

Day 22

Day 23

Day 24

Day 25

Day 26

Day 27

Day 28

Day 29

Day 30

Day 31

Day 32

Day 33

Day 34

Day 35

Day 36

Day 37

Day 38

Day 39

Day 40

Day 41

Day 42

Day 43

Day 44

Day 45

Day 46

Day 47

Day 48

Day 49

Day 50

Day 51

Day 52

Day 53

Day 54

Day 55

Day 56

Day 57

Day 58

Day 59

Day 60

Day 61

Day 62

Day 63

Day 64

Day 65

Day 66

Day 67

Day 68

Day 69

Day 70

Day 71

Day 72

Day 73

Day 74

Day 75

Day 76

Day 77

Day 78

Day 79

Day 80

Day 81

Day 82

Day 83

Day 84

Day 85

Day 86

Day 87

Day 88

Day 89

Day 90

Day 91

Day 92

Day 93

Day 94

Day 95

Day 96

Day 97

Day 98

Day 99

Day 100

Day 101

Day 102

Day 103

Day 104

Day 105

Day 106

Day 107

Day 108

Day 109

Day 110

Day 111

Day 112

Day 113

Day 114

Day 115

Day 116

Day 117

Day 118

Day 119

Day 120

Day 121

Day 122

Day 123

Day 124

Day 125

Day 126

Day 127

Day 128

Day 129

Day 130

Day 131

Day 132

Day 133

Day 134

Day 135

Day 136

Day 137

Day 138

Day 139

Day 140

Day 141

Day 142

Day 143

Day 144

Day 145

Day 146

Day 147

Day 148

Day 149

Day 150

Day 151

Day 152

Day 153

Day 154

Day 155

Day 156

Day 157

Day 158

Day 159

Day 160

Day 161

Day 162

Day 163

Day 164

Day 165

Day 166

Day 167

Day 168

Day 169

Day 170

Day 171

Day 172

Day 173

Day 174

Day 175

Day 176

Day 177

Day 178

Day 179

Day 180

Day 181

Day 182

Day 183

Day 184

Day 185

Day 186

Day 187

Day 188

Day 189

Day 190

Day 191

Day 192

Day 193

Day 194

Day 195

Day 196

Day 197

Day 198

Day 199

Day 200

Day 201

Day 202

Day 203

Day 204

Day 205

Day 206

Day 207

Day 208

Day 209

Day 210

Day 211

Day 212

Day 213

Day 214

Day 215

Day 216

Day 217

Day 218

Day 219

Day 220

Day 221

Day 222

Day 223

Day 224

Day 225

Day 226

Day 227

Day 228

Day 229

Day 230

Day 231

Day 232

Day 233

Day 234

Day 235

Day 236

Day 237

Day 238

Day 239

Day 240

Day 241

Day 242

Day 243

Day 244

Day 245

Day 246

Day 247

Day 248

Day 249

Day 250

Day 251

Day 252

Day 253

Day 254

Day 255

Day 256

Day 257

Day 258

Day 259

Day 260

Day 261

Day 262

Day 263

Day 264

Day 265

Day 266

Day 267

Day 268

Day 269

Day 270

Day 271

Day 272

Day 273

Day 274

Day 275

Day 276

Day 277

Day 278

Day 279

Day 280

Day 281

Day 282

Day 283

Day 284

Day 285

Day 286

Day 287

Day 288

Day 289

Day 290

Day 291

Day 292

Day 293

Day 294

Day 295

Day 296

Day 297

Day 298

Day 299

Day 300

Day 301

Day 302

Day 303

Day 304

Day 305

Day 306

Day 307

Day 308

Day 309

Day 310

Day 311

Day 312

Day 313

Day 314

Day 315

Day 316

Day 317

Day 318

Day 319

Day 320

Day 321

Day 322

Day 323

Day 324

Day 325

Day 326

Day 327

Day 328

Day 329

Day 330

Day 331

Day 332

Day 333

Day 334

Day 335

Day 336

Day 337

Day 338

Day 339

Day 340

Day 341

Day 342

Day 343

Day 344

Day 345

Day 346

Day 347

Day 348

Day 349

Day 350

Day 351

Day 352

Day 353

Day 354

Day 355

Day 356

Day 357

Day 358

Day 359

Day 360

Day 361

Day 362

Day 363

Day 364

Day 365


Lista said...

You Know What? Maybe I will, and Meanwhile, I Need your Help Over at my Blog. They've been Asking me Questions on My Mount Saint Helens Post.

radar said...

I did go there, and I can help by making a couple of posts here later. The Grand Canyon is used by creationists to teach students about Flood geology and the effects of the Ice Age on the topography of the planet after the Flood. Ironically the Darwinists fail to see the evidence in that canyon that kills their concepts dead, not to mention other sites that are even worse for them.

Anonymous said...

A good question over at Lista's blog was this one, by a commenter called Satyavati devi dasi:

"The question I'm asking involves the many thousands of feet of strata at the Grand Canyon, which comprise various types of rock such as limestone (which precipitates in warm, shallow ocean conditions and in the case of the Grand Canyon contains marine fossils) and sandstones (also fossiliferous), and which is unconformably underlain by the Visnu Schist.

What I am curious about is what you would say the timeframe was for these thousands of feet of strata to be emplaced as rock, and to explain how a marine strata (and the carbonates that form limestone precipitate out of the water.. they don't evaporate) can be both underlain and overlain by sandstones (some of which are clearly desert, wind-bedded strata) in a short period of time, and how to account for geologic features such as the unconformity of the Visnu Schist at the base of the canyon. I'm interested to know what kind of timeframe would be required for all of this to occur."

Hate to break it to you, Lista, but Radar won't be able to answer this. Be prepared for some major evasions.

radar said...

Actually I have already answered the false concept of wind-bedded strata. It has been proven to be a water deposit and not a wind deposit. Not that I expect you to keep up and read every post, but if you had read all I have posted about the Grand Canyon you know that the desert layering proposal was falsified and I presented documentation. Search feature?

Lista said...

Thanks Radar,
For coming by my blog. Satyavati is Asking all Kinds of Questions. They are Very Intelligent Questions and she Appears to Really Want to Know.

I Gave an Answer Myself to her in Relation to the Limestone "(which precipitates in warm, shallow ocean conditions)". Actually, though, Satyavati's Words did not Include the Word "Shallow". She just said "Warm Oceanic Conditions."

One Possible Answer could have to do with Genesis 7:11, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

These Springs are Very Hot, like 450 Degrees. The Point I made was that if these Highly Heated "springs of the great deep burst forth", as the Bible Suggests, then the Warm Ocean Water Rose and Mixed with all the Water from "the floodgates of the heavens" and there was, therefore, the "Warm Oceanic Conditions" Necessary for the "Marine Limestone".

See Radar's Post, Is the Bible Scientifically Correct? Introducing, Please Convince Me, that is the Section on "Are there Springs and Fountains in the Sea?" for a more Detailed Explanation of the Fountains and "Springs of the Great Deep.

Anonymous said...

"It has been proven to be a water deposit and not a wind deposit."

Link or retract.

radar said...

One, I do not take orders from anonymous people. You can take your link and retract it yourself. I wouldn't just call you up and order you to cut your lawn. You have no authority.

We are all people with our own agendas. I would tell you to prove me wrong.

Two, before your pompous mandate was issued I already posted a long column dealing with schists and sedimentary rock layering. There is more to come. But I have posted before on how schists are formed by both water events. There will be a follow-up.

But I don't take orders from trolls. If you can prove me wrong, go for it. I would read the article first, though, since it is rather extensive.

radar said...

Lista, not only springs from underground produce high temps, but rapid subduction of tectonic plates and volcanic activity would produce great heat as well. Flood event science is fascinating, as the Flood was a catastrophic event that dwarfs anything else the planet has seen. Tragedies like the Japan Earthquake or the Johnstown Flood are nothing compared to the Flood. Mt St Helens was a miniature teaching tool on the Grand Canyon formation but the Flood to Mt St Helens is like the Sun compared to a grain of sand.

Lista said...

Thanks Radar,
I Knew that you would Fill in the Rest. I was Thinking about Volcanic Activity as well, but was Trying to Keep my Comment more Simple and Allow you to say the Rest.

As to Mr. Anonymous, That's Why I don't allow Anonymous Commenters. I Figure if someone Wants to Talk Bad Enough, they can Sign Up and Identify themselves. I'd Like to See the Previous Link as well, yet am Just as Happy to Wait for your Follow Up.

radar said...

in order to promote free speech I have allowed anonymous comments. If I notice bad language I delete them. If I notice spam I delete it. Blogger has a spam filter fortunately.

My latest post is the one with the schist discussions and the repost of the Ian Juby Flume testing that clearly identifies how sedimentary layers such as those exposed by the Grand Canyon can be formed by a massive flood event. In fact the testing shows precisely how the large number of one-way dino/amphibian tracks were produced as well.

radar said...

Read my first day of Old Testament today. Those of you who wish to learn, join me. We'll get the Old Testament done in a year's time and I may post from time to time on the progress and observations. Genesis 1:1-3 may be close to the most hated portion of the OT for Darwinists, as it clearly states that the Universe was made in six days and that Adam and Eve were the first humans. You cannot actually believe the Bible is the Word of God and logically believe in macroevolution.

Lista said...

Free Speech is Preserved by the Fact that Anyone who Wants to can Sign Up and Comment, or for that Matter, Set Up their Own Blog, though we do all have the Right to Make these Decisions in Relation to Our Own Blogs.

I have Referred Satyavati to your Latest Post. I hope she Reads it. She is Still Asking me lots of Questions. Anytime that you can Find to Drop by my Blog, I'd Really Appreciate your Input.

I'll Try to Start Reading Genesis, though I Admit that these things can be rather Difficult to Keep Up with.

Anonymous said...

"One, I do not take orders from anonymous people."

And two, you couldn't back up your claim.

Thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

"One, I do not take orders from anonymous people."

And two, you couldn't back up your claim.

Thanks for playing.

So you cannot read? There was a great big post on the subject!

Anonymous said...

"So you cannot read? There was a great big post on the subject!"

That proved that it was a water deposit, not a wind deposit? Try again. Maybe you're the one who can't read.

AmericanVet said...

Who is the oddball who keeps posting on the wrong thread? This comment thread is about the Bible, okay? Lista was asking a question but if you want to learn about water formation of rocks read my "One year later" post.

Genesis 6:1 "When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[m] humans forever, for they are mortal[n]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Travesty bordering on heresy, the new NIV characterizes the sons of God as if they were another race aka angels? But Jesus clearly specified that angels are not male and females. The meaning of this verse is that believing people married unbelievers and were led astray. There is nothing in the Hebrew to support the concept of a mixing of non-humans and humans in this verse. The new NIV translators are to be ashamed and should correct this!

AmericanVet said...

Lista said...

I've Actually Heard this Verse Interpreted as Aliens (Yes, that is UFOs) Cohabiting with Humans and Creating Off Spring that are Part Alien. Thanks for Giving me an Interpretation that Sounds more Normal.