The Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States' sovereign interest in protecting their borders.”
"Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children." Isaiah 66:8
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.[1]
People in the 1930s weren't able to use the bible to predict that Israel would be created in a day in the next 20 years. There's also the doubt over how long a "day" is in the bible, so it seems more a case of it only being a prediction in hindsight.
This prophecy also has a self-fulfilling prophecy nature to it, because plenty of groups in America (alone) had good and (maybe mostly) terrible reasons to follow the prophecy "like a blueprint".
>The Genesis creation story states that God created the universe in 6 days, but any attempt to demonstrate that it is false will have believers declaring that a "day" is not a precise measurement of time.
The Bible is rather clear that God doesn't measure time like humans do.
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
The bible is a clear about a lot of things that are utter nonsense, I wouldn't use it as a guide for anything related to things like measurements of anything.
And a day is a day, no matter how you try to spin it after a couple of thousand years of peddling nonsense to try to make the gravytrain go a little farther.
This is no different than the Jehova's witnesses changing their 'due date' whenever it doesn't work.
> This is no different than the Jehova's witnesses changing their 'due date' whenever it doesn't work.
Or much different than the excuses science's fan base will trot out whenever it gets caught speaking untruthfully, like their Theory of "Everything" Motte and Bailey.
It seems humans have to worship something, and what they worship is usually what is pushed by the mainstream, and whatever it is will be defended aggressively.
Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.” Romans 3:4
... and thus some Christians claim the six day chronology in Genesis is really a six thousand year chronology... which still doesn't square with science.
To say nothing of the fact that 2 Peter was written centuries (if not longer) after Genesis, and there's no evidence the Hebrews themselves interpreted the account that way. The existence of the Sabbath falling within a single week rather than multiple millennia suggests they interpreted the six day chronology as... six days.
And the context of that verse clearly describes time from the human perspective relative to God's promises. The author isn't making a declarative statement about the way God experiences time, but pointing out that God doesn't operate on human timescales. That God may lay plans that take a thousand years to unfold.
That particular retcon doesn't make Christians look any better, it actually makes them look even worse.
> The universe started with light in both accounts.
First light was estimated to be about 240,000 to 300,000 years after the big bang, so I would hesitate to say that the universe started with light [1]. You could determine that the first "day" started 300,000 years or so after the big bang, but then that throws off the other timings of creation. This demonstrates how the bible isn't even precise enough to be proven wrong as the "day" can seem to mean whatever people want it to mean.
> I take it to mean the creation account is from God's perspective not ours.
This sounds to me almost like a get-out clause as presumably God's perspective can be interpreted to be anything you want and cannot be proven false (similar to how an invisible pink unicorn's perspective can never be proven false).
That's just a bizarre definition of light. By that definition the center of a star is dark because the photons keep getting reabsorbed immediately. Which is always true from a photons point of view anyway, so what's the difference? In fact you might as well say that the universe was dark until the first eye evolved.
It was on HN few months ago and since then I do it almost every day. I've been going to the gym for a long time but proper stretching is something I never paid attention to.
