Believe the Bible - or mock the Bible - which do you choose?

[Speedwell]

Why are you so bitter Speedy ?

Why do you think I'm bitter? Because I ask questions you don't want to answer?

 

[Speedwell]

As already noted in this Bible detail most to be rejected according to blind faith evolutionism -- "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"

This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"

Gen 2 -
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20 - legal code (not poetry - not symbolism)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

What is your explanation for the change of voicing in Gen 20:11 which would otherwise indicate a parenthetical insertion, rather than the recorded words of God?

 

[SkyWriting]

Darwin and Dawkins both looked into this and came to the same conclusion - better to "mock the Bible" in their POV.

When you "mock" an idea, is that normally effective?
I would think you would only suggest an effective
course of action.

Mocking is usually reserved for the very who refuse
to listen to true authority.

 

[BobRyan]

As already noted in this Bible detail most to be rejected according to blind faith evolutionism -- "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"

This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"

Gen 2 -
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20 - legal code (not poetry - not symbolism)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

this is a bible detail that cannot be ignored when admitting that the Bible describes a real - literal "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" 7 day week for creation that maps exactly to the week of Exodus 20.

Irrefutable.

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

So much so that atheists have no problem admitting to what the text says -- even though they do not agree with its teaching.

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


Bible believing Christians are not in a conflict-of-interest on this Bible detail because they freely reject blind faith evolutionism - so no Bible bending the text of Genesis for them.

Atheists are not in a conflict of interest position on this Bible detail because they freely reject the Bible - so they too do not engage in Bible bending in Genesis as Dr Barr points out.

What is your explanation for the change of voicing in Gen 20:11 which would otherwise indicate a parenthetical insertion, rather than the recorded words of God?

Genesis 20:11
11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.

??

Please be serious. This is an accurate record of real events in history. So also the record of the virgin birth... the record of the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ into heaven... the 7 day creation week...

As already noted in this Bible detail most to be rejected according to blind faith evolutionism -- "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"

This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"

 

[BobRyan]

You really don't get it--that it is possible for an historical narrative to be true without being 100% accurate literal history?

100% accurate????

you proposing wiping out all of Genesis 1-11 and call that "almost 100%"??? really???

Please be serious.

 

[Speedwell]

100% accurate????

you proposing wiping out all of Genesis 1-11 and call that "almost 100%"??? really???

Please be serious.

I'm not sure I understand your question. What I propose is taking the various stories which were compiled into Genesis 1-11 for what they are, at least what historical and literary scholarship suggests that they are.

You, for some reason you have not shared with us, seem to think that this rules out the possibility of divine inspiration.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not sure I understand your question. What I propose is taking the various stories which were compiled into Genesis 1-11 for what they are, at least what historical and literary scholarship suggests that they are.

That would be a welcomed change.

remember this?

Darwin and Dawkins both looked into this and came to the same conclusion - better to "mock the Bible" in their POV.

The T.E. quote above is not the only one who claims that his Christianity was being set aside by belief in the doctrine on origins found in evolution -

Darwin also claimed that faith in evolutionism destroyed Christianity for him - ...

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.

When I said in the OP that "rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

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


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

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.

That is where we read this --

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.

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

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

 

[Speedwell]

That would be a welcomed change.

remember this?




That is where we read this --

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'.

Not really a problem for those of us who reject Sola Scriptura. Our faith in those events does not rest upon the Bible alone, or even--in my case--mostly.

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.’

I agree.

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

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.

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

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

The Bible can be bent? No, I don't think it is possible to interpret the Genesis stories to agree with scientific theories of our origins.

 

[BobRyan]

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.

"rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

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


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

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'.


....

Not really a problem for those of us who reject Sola Scriptura.

"Flip flop"?? You just stated that admitting to the actual intent of the author was key!

NOW you insist that the bible is to be dismissed as often as blind faith evolutionism needs it - because after all you reject the testing of your doctrine by the Bible??

Our faith in those events does not rest upon the Bible alone, or even--in my case--mostly.

Good luck with that.

You admit that your "source of truth" is not the Bible - it is the "tradition of man".

No, I don't think it is possible to interpret the Genesis stories to agree with scientific theories of our origins.

Darwin agreed with you on that point - as he left Christianity. So also does Dawkins, Provine, P.Z.Meyers et al... agree with you as they too left Christianity.

Because Christianity without the Bible is not much at all. Just a "party club".

I will hand this to you though - credit where credit is due - you are being honest about your rejection of the religion of the bible in exchange for the religion of atheist evolutionism that declares "a bacteria will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough length of time filled with improbable just-so stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science"

This leaves you in the perfect position of not needing to bend or edit the Bible - similar to the atheist context - because in fact you care nothing about what it says when it opposes the gods of evolutionism.


Mark 7:6-13 comes to mind.

==========

Lets look at the subject of the traditions of the magisterium of the church and how they may be hammered "Sola Scripture" in cases where they happen to be in error.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture

 

[Speedwell]

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.


"rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this


Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without .excuse

To all of which the Bible bears witness, but the Bible is nowhere specifically referred to in that passage.

"Flip flop"?? You just stated that admitting to the actual intent of the author was key!

I'd like to see the quote, because what I was attempting to explain is that if any one thing could be taken as key, it iis genre determination.

NOW you insist that the bible is to be dismissed as often as blind faith evolutionism needs it - because after all you reject the testing of your doctrine by the Bible??

I opinion of the Bible has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow, my opinion of the Bible would not change.

]You admit that your "source of truth" is not the Bible - it is the "tradition of man".

Admit it? I affirm it. The church I belong to holds that faith in Christ depends equally on tradition, scripture. But tradition is not the same as the magisterium of the Papists. In this case it amounts to Apostolic Witness. I believe that Christ rose from the dead, not because "it says so in the Bible," but because the companions of Christ believed it, and passed that belief to us from one Christian to the next down to this day.

Because Christianity without the Bible is not much at all. Just a "party club".

Who said anything about "without the Bible?" The Bible is the Word of God.

This leaves you in the perfect position of not needing to bend or edit the Bible - similar to the atheist context - because in fact you care nothing about what it says when it opposes the gods of evolutionism.

You keep repeating this, though it is a lie. Of all the reasons to reject a literal interpretation of 'Genesis, evolution isn't even near the top of the list..

 

[Speedwell]

What is your explanation for the change of voicing in Gen 20:11 which would otherwise indicate a parenthetical insertion, rather than the recorded words of God?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

After all this time and trouble dealing with non-believers in God, I am constantly surprised and astounded when someone publishes a statement like this.

"Anyone not agreeing with ME and bowing to my superior intellect and knowledge is MOCKING the Bible! The Bible message is self-evident, but only I can make a final determination." I cannot remember all the times I've heard this before.

 

[Radrook]

Let's not forget that it takes millions of years for ice to form to a depth of 260 feet; though 8 WWII planes were buried that deep in just 49 years.

They have found some very weird things buried in strata which they aren't supposed to be in.

Examples
http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place

 

[BobRyan]

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists who used to be Christian.

"rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

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


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

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'.


....

Not really a problem for those of us who reject Sola Scriptura.

"Flip flop"?? You just stated that admitting to the actual intent of the author was key!

NOW you insist that the bible is to be dismissed as often as blind faith evolutionism needs it - because after all you reject the testing of your doctrine by the Bible??

Our faith in those events does not rest upon the Bible alone, or even--in my case--mostly.

Good luck with that.

You admit that your "source of truth" is not the Bible - it is the "tradition of man".

No, I don't think it is possible to interpret the Genesis stories to agree with scientific theories of our origins.

Darwin agreed with you on that point - as he left Christianity. So also does Dawkins, Provine, P.Z.Meyers et al... agree with you as they too left Christianity.

Because Christianity without the Bible is not much at all. Just a "party club".

I will hand this to you though - credit where credit is due - you are being honest about your rejection of the religion of the bible in exchange for the religion of atheist evolutionism that declares "a bacteria will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough length of time filled with improbable just-so stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science"

This leaves you in the perfect position of not needing to bend or edit the Bible - similar to the atheist context - because in fact you care nothing about what it says when it opposes the gods of evolutionism.


Mark 7:6-13 comes to mind.

==========

Lets look at the subject of the traditions of the magisterium of the church and how they may be hammered "Sola Scripture" in cases where they happen to be in error.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture

 

[Colter]

There will always be unbelievers for whatever their reasons, but religion itself is a proud institution, it petrified human writings into Gods writings making it impossible to reform.

The fact of evolution is only incompatible with the human story of a YEC created by the Hebrews in Babylon.

 

[Speedwell]

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists who used to be Christian.

"rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

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


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

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'.


....


"Flip flop"?? You just stated that admitting to the actual intent of the author was key!

NOW you insist that the bible is to be dismissed as often as blind faith evolutionism needs it - because after all you reject the testing of your doctrine by the Bible??



Good luck with that.

You admit that your "source of truth" is not the Bible - it is the "tradition of man".



Darwin agreed with you on that point - as he left Christianity. So also does Dawkins, Provine, P.Z.Meyers et al... agree with you as they too left Christianity.

Because Christianity without the Bible is not much at all. Just a "party club".

I will hand this to you though - credit where credit is due - you are being honest about your rejection of the religion of the bible in exchange for the religion of atheist evolutionism that declares "a bacteria will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough length of time filled with improbable just-so stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science"

This leaves you in the perfect position of not needing to bend or edit the Bible - similar to the atheist context - because in fact you care nothing about what it says when it opposes the gods of evolutionism.


Mark 7:6-13 comes to mind.

All of that is a repeat post, but since you ignored my previous responses to it I suppose we should move on.

Lets look at the subject of the traditions of the magisterium of the church and how they may be hammered "Sola Scripture" in cases where they happen to be in error.

Of course the Magisterium of the RC church is not the same thing as Apostolic Witness--as you well know.

If you cannot argue your position honestly, what good is it?

 

[BobRyan]

There will always be unbelievers for whatever their reasons, .

Didn't you already post in favor of "mock the Bible"?

 

[JacksBratt]

There will always be unbelievers for whatever their reasons, but religion itself is a proud institution, it petrified human writings into Gods writings making it impossible to reform.

The fact of evolution is only incompatible with the human story of a YEC created by the Hebrews in Babylon.

The hoax of evolution is a concept that is a the deception of Satan himself.

Just look at the state of conflict in the mind of Darwin himself. It is plain to see in the quotes in post 174 that Darwin was a man in mental turmoil over his knowledge of the Bible and his taunting from ship mates leading to questions and disbelief in the truth of the biblical accounts.

This poor man.

If one was to read the Bible, without any input from the TOE or other concepts of the atheistic mind set, it would be crystal clear that there was six literal days and the creation account, as written, was truth.

It is not until the "wisdom of mankind", and other concepts of men, enter into the picture, that people begin to doubt.

Then, being taunted and ridiculed for their belief in an ancient book. Combined with the whole world of academia brainwashing them to believe that the TOE and old age earth is "fact"..... they have to make a choice.

1/ YEC is true, The Bible is literal.
2/ God is real but the TOE is also true.... so, split the difference and God is real and used the TOE and the earth is old and Genesis is a story, myth, parable.
3/There is no God.

Don't forget.... Satan asked Eve...."And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,"?

Satan is still doing that today. One big example is "Is it really a 24 hour day?"

Let's not be deceived.....

 

[Radrook]

The hoax of evolution is a concept that is a the deception of Satan himself.

Just look at the state of conflict in the mind of Darwin himself. It is plain to see in the quotes in post 174 that Darwin was a man in mental turmoil over his knowledge of the Bible and his taunting from ship mates leading to questions and disbelief in the truth of the biblical accounts.

This poor man.

If one was to read the Bible, without any input from the TOE or other concepts of the atheistic mind set, it would be crystal clear that there was six literal days and the creation account, as written, was truth.

It is not until the "wisdom of mankind", and other concepts of men, enter into the picture, that people begin to doubt.

Then, being taunted and ridiculed for their belief in an ancient book. Combined with the whole world of academia brainwashing them to believe that the TOE and old age earth is "fact"..... they have to make a choice.

1/ YEC is true, The Bible is literal.
2/ God is real but the TOE is also true.... so, split the difference and God is real and used the TOE and the earth is old and Genesis is a story, myth, parable.
3/There is no God.

Don't forget.... Satan asked Eve...."And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,"?

Satan is still doing that today. One big example is "Is it really a 24 hour day?"

Let's not be deceived.....

Since the length of the days isn't a salvation issue why give it any attention?

 

[JacksBratt]

Since the length of the days isn't a salvation issue why give it any attention?

I have looked at it that way too.