Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Queller]

Who cares?

More trivial finger pointing. It it weren't so obviously pitiful what you are doing it would be entertaining.

Do you have any clue how this relates to the post you quoted? Because I sure don't.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you have any clue how this relates to the post you quoted? Because I sure don't.

Of course I do. What a strange reply.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

BobRyan said: ↑
That is not a quote from Ex 20:9-11 or Ex 20:8-11. This thread is about the legal code that we find there.

In that legal code - God Himself is speaking - and He says "six days YOU shall labor... for in SIX Days the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them."



Colte - at least "admits" to the contradiction -- as did Darwin admit to it, and so also does Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers etc.

you are sticking with 'creationists can't read' - as if that is believable.

So fine then we turn to - the atheist/agnostic professors for Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities. Let's hear what they have to say.
=====================================

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

Its not that the Hebrews of old didn't interpret the creation as literally six days. Its rather that God, in His providence, allowed the language placed there to allow us to alternately interpret the creation narrative. Its is a miracle of God that the OT only has so few scriptures describing the pre-scientific viewpoint, which allows us to still consider the Bible seriously even though we today know the truth about evolution and the age of the universe.

The first chapter of Genesis is clearly poetic. It is seen by us, today, as a parable rather than a literal statement. Once, just like the statements that the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening, it was considered literally true. Today, though I will agree that the literal statement is of literal days and a literal week, I also affirm we do not have to interpret the passage literally. It is poetry. It points to the timeless, eternal truth of God as creator.

Look at the pattern of the days:

Day One: light is created. Day Four: Sun, Moon and Stars. Hmmm . . . any similarity?
Day Two: Seperation of waters above from waters below, creating an empty space. Compare to Day Five: Birds for the space between the waters, fishes for the waters. Hmmmm . . . more connections?
Day three: Dry land appears. Day Six . . . animals and plants on the land.

Clear patterns.

If you interpret the days as epochs, the order as not chronological but actually overlapping and topical . . . then you can agree with the narrative today even scientifically! A most remarkable achievement for God to manage into His word, we should not reject what God achieved there. He made it possible to reconcile His bible with modern science.

There is no way to keep to an all literal interpretation, not without admitting contradiction in the Bible. The alternate order of creation between Adam and Animals in genesis 1 vs 2 settles that. You MUST depart from literal interpretation if you wish to preserve inerrancy.

So why not go ahead and reconcile the Word of God as revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes, with the Word of God in the Bible by that same means?

God cannot lie.

 

[4x4toy]

The levirate marriage ? I had to refresh .. Yes I believe it was a Jewish law .. How does that factor in ?

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, you have made an arbitrary choice with no reason behind it.

Is that what faith is to you? "no reason"?

I'm glad God thinks otherwise.

Hebrews 11:38a Of whom the world was not worthy:

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Is that what faith is to you? "no reason"?

I'm glad God thinks otherwise.

Hebrews 11:38a Of whom the world was not worthy:

No it is only what faith is to you. I have reasons for my faith, you do not; I know this because you have been given ample time to explain your reasons for accepting KJV over Hebrew and Greek and have not shared them.

 

[AV1611VET]

No it is only what faith is to you. I have reasons for my faith, you do not; I know this because you have been given ample time to explain your reasons for accepting KJV over Hebrew and Greek and have not shared them.

I should report you for this, but I won't.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I should report you for this, but I won't.

You should share reasons for being KJV only, which I haven't seen.

 

[Colter]

Agreed.

But junk-science that "never happened in nature" - is.



Here again - your "attack the Bible so I can believe in evolutionism" approach here is "much predicted".

Darwin himself admits that this is how it must be.



Well it not a very good one. It is a junk-science religion filled with fraud as in the case of the horse series still on display at the Smithsonian.

Hailed as the best example of evolutionism observed/found/confirmed -- only to later have to admit that the sequence they 'dreamed up for emotional effect' in fact "never happened in nature".

Try getting the Physics department to claim that "gravitational constant was never measured and confirmed" -- not going to happen in "real science"



So good thing we are not reading something they just 'made up'.

2 Peter 1
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

As God's Word says.




All I have to do is "read" -- the Bible and accept it instead of rejecting it.

Your constant attack on the Bible in defense of blind faith evolutionism - is much predicted.

Even Darwin noted that this is the necessary result.

My gosh there's that horse again. Ever hear of beating a dead horse? Scientific speculation does at times get things wrong, thankfully that's what makes science, science. Religion on the other hand must have reform forced upon it. But the fact that the earth is very old and the fact that it has been the host of many epochs of creature life is indisputable to lucid people.

And yes, the creation story was basically made up, it was written by the arrogant chosen people for the arrogant chosen people. Jesus never said we should attach his gospel to the Old Testament.

 

[Colter]

 

[KWCrazy]

The earth is in heaven right now? Because I look out my window right now and it looks dark to me.

I promise you, you're not in Heaven.

 

[KWCrazy]

IOW, you are not open to any new evidence ever because you have already determined that there is nothing that you could imagine that could convince you. Please tell me how I twisted that.

If you have the truth, what does it take to convince you of a lie?

 

[KWCrazy]

I for one, don't doubt God's Word. I doubt fallible man's understanding and interpretation of it.

How about showing us 3 possible interpretations of Exodus 20:11.

 

[KWCrazy]

You should share reasons for being KJV only, which I haven't seen.

Over the centuries, there has been no question that the KJV is an extremely accurate retelling of the Scriptures; as accurate as the differing languages would allow. It wasn't until recently that those who refuse to believe the word of God began to twist the original definitions to make it fit with their true religion; evolution. Evolution is very important to them because if man is evolved then there is no Creator and no ultimate consequence to sin. It's easier for them to reject it all if the supplant it with a supposed "enlightened" Bible which says essentially nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Over the centuries, there has been no question that the KJV is an extremely accurate retelling of the Scriptures; as accurate as the differing languages would allow. It wasn't until recently that those who refuse to believe the word of God began to twist the original definitions to make it fit with their true religion; evolution. Evolution is very important to them because if man is evolved then there is no Creator and no ultimate consequence to sin. It's easier for them to reject it all if the supplant it with a supposed "enlightened" Bible which says essentially nothing.

How many times here have I said, "Now you know one of the reasons I'm a KJVO"?

If he's truly curious, he can Google why people are KJVO.

But it's easier to accuse me of having no reason(s) for my faith, isn't it?

 

[BobRyan]

Caught in the act (Watch as these atheist evolutionist scientists confess)

G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.

“The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.



Outright confession –about the fraudulent horse series on display in the Smithsonian

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

================================

How is it that the history of the horse family - on display in the Smithsonian to this very day in 2016 as an arrangement fabricated by Othaniel Marsh -- is a fossil sequence "story" declared to "have never happened in nature" in the 1950's - by their own atheist scientists.

My gosh there's that horse again.

Irrefutable evidence of the junk-science nature of blind-faith evolutionism -- does not "vanish" simply because your Urantia preference does not find that fact of history 'convenient' -- I think we can all see that.

And yes, the creation story was basically made up, it was written by the arrogant chosen people for the arrogant chosen people. Jesus never said we should attach his gospel to the Old Testament.

Jesus quotes the OT text as written by Moses - and also affirms the "details" of marriage in Genesis 2 -- instead of the wildly abusive-to-the-text "story was basically made up, it was written by the arrogant chosen people".

Still - you have this one point in your favor -- your "attack the Bible first" solution in defense of blind-faith evolutionism is much-predicted and Darwin himself confessed to this fact.

 

[BobRyan]

"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================================

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

============================

It's not "junk science" to sincere truth seekers. ..
It is a fact that the fossil record deposited over many different ages show signs of diverse life that lived at different times. That alone, without evolutionary speculation contradicts the Hebrews guesswork in Genesis.

I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,

 

[Kenny'sID]

I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,

On Youtube, I asked several times of different Atheists/evolutionists to bring their proof to the table and let's talk about it, whether it be a single piece or a few pieces combined that prove evolution. Nearly, if not every single time a link was given to "go look at this" bunch of papers/documents/pictures and they never would bring what I asked, even after being specific and telling them why I would accept no link. I was supposed to go read all this stuff and be convinced just as they were. I never would go because I've seen it all before and there simply is nothing but what Patterson said....or things that some choose to believe as proof, but no real proof at all.

 

[Colter]

"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================================

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

============================

You keep recycling the same straw man. You have NO EXPLANATION for the very presence of a multitude of fossils within many layers laid down over many ages compared to the Hebrews "blind faith" YEC, creation. Rather your avoidance, move the goalpost technique, is to use someone's acknowledgment that they cant find the transitional fossils. The picture graph I provided simply shows those different living things in their respectiave time periods, NOT the transitional life forms that frankly NEVER EXISTED anyway.

 

[rjs330]

When the literal text says
Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them"

yes that is a creation account. Literally.

Your problem is you are not interpreting the words literally. How dare you to stop using your own rule about interpreting the bible literally? You can't just pick and choose what you want to be literal and what you don't want to be literal . . . . and then deny others the same right. If you get to do it, I get to do it. Fair's fair.

Don't forget scripture must be interpreted by context as well as words. Gen 1 gives the overview of creation and the chronology of it. Gen 2 focuses on man and some other items left,out of the overview. God does not contradict himself so the easy explanation is God was reiterating the fact that he created the animals. Why would God try and reexplain himself? God doesn't have to say in Gen 2 "I created animals on day whatever and the birds on day whatever and the fish on day whatever and brought them t o,man to name" He's already told us what day they were created. He was pointing out in Gen 2 the difference between men and animals. Which is a DIRECT contradiction to evolution. The fact that man named all the creatures after his creation directly flys in the face of evolution.

This passage is easy.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk