Adam & Eve

sandwiches · #**101** 17th June 2009, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Okay, sandwiches, I'm back.

Sorry --- I'm giving a lecture tonight titled:

Where is the Water Canopy Today? A Lecture on the Canadian Shield, or Laurentian Theology.

Just kidding --- Yes.No.

For example: If evidence points to Egypt existing before the Flood, since this clearly contradicts the Bible, I take it on faith that the Bible is right, and these marks left over are wrong.

Then my faith [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right.

So, let's break down your last sentence using the terms you had agreed to previously:
"Then my belief without evidence [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right."

So to shorten this, you're saying the following:
"My BELIEF is evidence that I'm right."
Does this make sense to you?

Science, of course, is going to disagree, and then it becomes a matter of he-said/she-said.

I don't even think we should move on into the "validity" of evidence if the very definition of evidence and faith seem to be up in the air.

So, let's try to clarify.
Faith - Belief without evidence, Yes or no?

Evidence - Some sign left behind by an event, Yes or no?

AV1611VET · #**102** 17th June 2009, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by sandwiches

So, let's break down your last sentence using the terms you had agreed to previously:
"Then my belief without evidence [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right."

So to shorten this, you're saying the following:
"My BELIEF is evidence that I'm right."
Does this make sense to you?

Yes --- because, as the Bible says:

Originally Posted by Romans 10:17

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

In other words, what generates and strengthens my faith is the Word of God.

So here's the chain:

Evidence = vestiges of things that happened.
Evidence is generated and strengthened by the Word of God.
The Word of God attests to things that happened.

At least, that's my take on it --- maybe someone has a better way of explaining it.

Originally Posted by sandwiches

I don't even think we should move on into the "validity" of evidence if the very definition of evidence and faith seem to be up in the air.

Okay.

Originally Posted by sandwiches

So, let's try to clarify.
Faith - Belief without evidence, Yes or no?

Yes --- for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by sandwiches

Evidence - Some sign left behind by an event, Yes or no?

Yes.

AV1611VET · #**103** 17th June 2009, 07:43 PM

Sandwich --- I promise you --- I'm as easy as pie to get along with.

I'll do everything I can to agree with you, but I draw the line at saying the Bible is wrong.

Ask around, you'll see I agree with about 95% of the conclusions that even atheists here come to.

Assyrian · #**104** 17th June 2009, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

That's cute.

Yeah I thought it struck the right note for your argument.

That's real cute.
Father and daughter? I don't think so. The father is already married (i.e. "one" with his spouse).

Does a pillar of salt count? Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.

Do you think the bible mentions this approvingly to show us how wise and resourceful Lot's daughters were?

Do you?

No, I think people listening to the story would have been horrified, and were meant to be horrified and repulsed by what happened.

I am not sure you will actually find that 'pure gene pool' idea in the bible.

Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?

So it's not it the bible then, I thought not.

All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.

If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?

No. You'd lose the newer mutations but get a whole load of old ones that have since been selected out.

Correct --- that is why God did not insist on the Death Penalty in his case.

Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.

Certainly not a transgression of the law, but there is still sin because people do what they know is wrong. Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. As Paul says in Romans 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned. 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. There may not have been an explicit Mosaic law about things but they were still sin.

I'm not sure "expect you to" is right --- after all --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.

Figuratively you mean?

sandwiches · #**105** 17th June 2009, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Yes --- because, as the Bible says:In other words, what generates and strengthens my faith is the Word of God.

So here's the chain:

Evidence = vestiges of things that happened.

Evidence is generated and strengthened by the Word of God.

The Word of God attests to things that happened.

At least, that's my take on it --- maybe someone has a better way of explaining it.Okay.Yes --- for the sake of arguing.Yes.

Great.

So the following chain can be assumed:
1. Evidence of X is found.
2. X goes against the Bible.
3. Your evidenceless belief (faith) trumps the evidence.
4. X is wrong and the evidence must also be wrong.

Now, we showed that the Earth moves despite what the Bible says about it being immovable. What does this mean? Is the Bible wrong, then?

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Sandwich --- I promise you --- I'm as easy as pie to get along with.

I'll do everything I can to agree with you, but I draw the line at saying the Bible is wrong.

Ask around, you'll see I agree with about 95% of the conclusions that even atheists here come to.

Why do you draw the line there? Does that mean that you've believed it but you won't confess to it or does that mean that you'll cover up for the Bible? What exactly are you saying?

LifeToTheFullest! · #**106** 17th June 2009, 08:26 PM

His belief is that the Bible is always 100% correct, 100% of the time.

Contradictions are only apparent contradictions, and the Bible in time will reveal the truth.

Anything contrary to a literal interpretation of the AVKJV can take a hike.

How'd I do AV?

Hespera · #**107** 17th June 2009, 08:26 PM

You will never know..................................

AV1611VET · #**108** 17th June 2009, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by LifeToTheFullest!

His belief is that the Bible is always 100% correct, 100% of the time.

Contradictions are only apparent contradictions, and the Bible in time will reveal the truth.

Anything contrary to a literal interpretation of the AVKJV can take a hike.

How'd I do AV?

Not bad --- not bad at all ---