Evolution vs. Theology
- Thread starter Achilles6129
- Start date
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
In other words, they make up their own religion based on what they're willing to believe.So, in other words, you don't know which parts are myth and which parts aren't
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you."
Proverbs 30: 5 Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar."
Psalms 119: 160 "All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal."
Revelation 22: "18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."
Jesus quoted from the Scriptures as 100% factual.
Mark 12: 24 Jesus replied, Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead risinghave you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!
They may wish to invent doctrine and pass it off as Scriptural, but as for me, I will believe the Lord.
Upvote
0
So, in other words, you don't know which parts are myth and which parts aren't
I don't think there are firm boundaries between myth, legend and history, though some parts of scripture are more clearly myth and some more clearly history with some debatable. There are certainly stories in which history and legend are interwoven.
The point, however, is that identifying any scriptural story as myth or legend is not grounds for rejecting it as inspired, truthful scripture.
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't see any symbolism in Revelation 22: 18-19, and neither do you.
Most of the Revelation is symbolism because it deals with the end of the world. God isn't going to put that information out there in simple English. Not even the angels know when the end will come. Why would He tell the unsaved how long they have before the judgment?
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
The verses are talking about the book of Revelation with all its symbolism and allegory.
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Do you see that as profoundly different from Psalms 30: 5-6, which says the same thing about the Old Testament? The message is clear. Don't add or detract from the Scriptures. God intends for them to be preserved, though properly re-translated into current language.
Upvote
0
mark wrote:
... which is what using a dictionary gives us.
psst. mark, you are making up definitions again.
No, that's a conclusion you have in your own mind. I've asked your for actually RCC support of that, and you've failed repeatedly to give it.
I gave the actual definition of Darwinism. Do you finally agree that mining old writings and stitching them together is not a way to get a defintion?
Sure it is. You obviously don't know what the words mean when you make false claims like those in these posts of yours, and it's especially telling when you refuse to simply use the dictionary definitions I've supplied.
empty insults in typical word salad.
empty insults in typical word salad.
non-sequiter. I pointed out that your posts are simply strings of inflammatory text (for ironic instance, see the two diatribes you just went on, above).
As far as evidence goes, you haven't posted relevant evidence. I hope you will though, it makes for better discussion.
Sigh. more empty insults.
More unrelated word salad. I asked if you understood:
Sure, he makes it abundantly clear that he is talking about atheistic versions of evolution. We could together fight those much more effectively if UCA deniers didn't insist on an untenable position.
Oh, OK, then you are going to start using dictionary defintions? Good.
Darn. I thought you were going to use real defintions. My bad. I guess we're back to you making up definitions and ignoring the actual definitions & facts. I should have realized that by "standards" you meant "my own personal definitions".
I did, several posts ago. The difference is and has been obvious.
So, where did you post the dictionary definition for darwinism?
Still falsely equating two different things. Sad to see.
As many of us have pointed out repeatedly (and will continue to do as long as you make your baseless claims), UCA is a conclusion, not an a priori assumption, regardless of how much you wish it were.
Wow, now you are making things up about what the "universal" means. You don't get tired of this, I see.
You are right about that. Did you see the dictionary definition, or should I post it again?
empty insults. You know mark, we may differ in that I don't seem to enjoy hurling insults.
I looked, and I didn't see them. Could you please list the post number and quote were I insulted you or someone else ?
Wow, that's nearly all the words in the hat! You missed "ghosts", however - maybe add that?
Oh yeah, "null". I forgot that one. More unrelated word salad. You could have avoided that by simply agreeing to use dictionary definitions, which is what the preceding statement was about.
Take care-
Papias
Originally Posted by Papias
That's the point of a definition, there is a definite meaning with precise details, essential meanings, literal and common usage meanings.
... which is what using a dictionary gives us.
psst. mark, you are making up definitions again.
No, that's a conclusion you have in your own mind. I've asked your for actually RCC support of that, and you've failed repeatedly to give it.
I gave the actual definition of Darwinism. Do you finally agree that mining old writings and stitching them together is not a way to get a defintion?
Sure it is. You obviously don't know what the words mean when you make false claims like those in these posts of yours, and it's especially telling when you refuse to simply use the dictionary definitions I've supplied.
empty insults in typical word salad.
As far as evidence goes, you haven't posted relevant evidence. I hope you will though, it makes for better discussion.
- the part about "converging evidence"?
- How about "virtually certain"?
- How about "humanoid lineage"?
- When he says "humanOID", what you think is meant?
Sure, he makes it abundantly clear that he is talking about atheistic versions of evolution. We could together fight those much more effectively if UCA deniers didn't insist on an untenable position.
Darn. I thought you were going to use real defintions. My bad. I guess we're back to you making up definitions and ignoring the actual definitions & facts. I should have realized that by "standards" you meant "my own personal definitions".
I did, several posts ago. The difference is and has been obvious.
So, where did you post the dictionary definition for darwinism?
Still falsely equating two different things. Sad to see.
As many of us have pointed out repeatedly (and will continue to do as long as you make your baseless claims), UCA is a conclusion, not an a priori assumption, regardless of how much you wish it were.
You are right about that. Did you see the dictionary definition, or should I post it again?
empty insults. You know mark, we may differ in that I don't seem to enjoy hurling insults.
Wow, that's nearly all the words in the hat! You missed "ghosts", however - maybe add that?
Take care-
Papias
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by PapiasThere is nothing symbolic about genealogies, Matthew presents Jesus genealogy because the Messiah had to be from the House of David. There is one minor difficulty in the list from the time the Jews returned from Babylon which is easily resolved, something you should have done a long time ago. Dismissing it as symbolic is an absurdity that neither the RCC or any reasonable Christian scholarship would approve of. The age of the earth is irrelevant, the substantive content of the genealogy is clearly focused on historic lineage. That is about as obvious an exposition of the Scriptures gets and you miss that in Genesis which is why you fumbled it in Matthew.
Saying something is "symbolic" is certainly not "dismissing" it. Do you "dismiss" the book of revelation because it is symbolic? Or Jesus words when he speaks a parable? I hope not. The genealogy is clearly not simple history, both because Matthew openly alters it, and because, as you yourself say, it is intended to convey the deeper meaning of Jesus' royal status.
Thank you.
First of all, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you are going to claim that the RCC sees genealogies as ways to determine lengths of time, or that New Advent disagrees with me, then it's up to you to check.
Secondly, I have read New Advent, and my recollection is that they state many examples of why you can't use genealogies to estimate time. But, again, that's up to you to provide support if you are making that claim.
Thirdly, New Advent is usually right, but is not a Vatican approved site. That's why, if there were a disagreement between, say, NA and a statement by a Pope, the latter is more authoritative.
I'm glad you are looking to New Advent, at least.
In His name-
Papias
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20, 21)
Theistic Evolution, a private interpretation of Scripture based on Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, calling Creation 'myth', 'symbol', 'parable', 'figurative' or anything other then a literal miracle.
I'm pretending that the literal meaning, AKA what it actually says, is what it actually means. While you are showing what it really means by denying what it actually says.
Your begging the question of proof on your hands and knees but you still have the audacity to be condescending. Vintage, theistic evolutionist rhetoric.
'Assyrian' said:
The Scriptures are altogether silent about the sun revolving around the earth or the earth revolving around the sun. Astronomers uniformly believed the sun revolved around the earth until the invention of the telescope, a fact you could only know if you actually cared about science. Galileo went to the Inquisition because he denied the majority opinion of the contemporary astronomers of his day, not because of what the Scriptures actually say. They do this whether it's the earth revolving around the sun or whether the word 'day' means 'day', denying the obvious is the bane of their rhetoric. Galileo's enemies who couldn't refute his proofs indicted him by twisting the Scriptures to mean something other then what they actually say, something worldly philosophers are obsessed with. That's one of the main reasons I don't believe in evolution as natural history, people really don't change much.
Mark Kennedy said:
Galileo argued that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. The Roman Catholic Church officially pronounced that they alone interpret the Scriptures so Galileo was put under house arrest for insisting on the obvious. Whether it's Darwinism or Aristotelian Scholasticism the world is against God's revelation and Christian apologists stand Contra Mundum, 'against the world',
Mark Kennedy said:
In response to the clear meaning of the direct quote, lexicon, concordance and dictionary definition:
Assyrian said:
So provided with the full definitions, highlighting the exact wording you claim is not a part of the definitions:
Mark Kennedy said:
Evening plus morning equals one day, seven days equals one week, thus Creation Week.
Not that it was ever necessary to consult a dictionary definition, it was obvious from the text all along.
Just deny the obvious in circles because circular logic is substantive how?
It's a direct quote, concordance, lexicon and dictionary definition, and plain common sense, but the passage and definitions don't mean what they say. Why? Because Assyrian gets to redefine the clear meaning of the text to mean something, anything, other then what it actually says. That's why!
You said it best:
Assyrian said:
That is the whole argument, you won't accept the literal meaning because you don't want to accept what it says. There is a reason Creation is essential doctrine, it's because it's inextricably linked to salvation:
We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.
Athanasius stood Contra Mundum ("against the world") in defense of the biblical doctrine of Christ
Understanding it isn't hard, you either believe it or you don't. From now on when you repeat the question I'll just refer you to this page, feel free to chase it in circles till you drop
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
That's the point of a definition, there is a definite meaning with precise details, essential meanings, literal and common usage meanings.
Indeed
(Darwinism, Wikipedia)
(§ 4. Darwin's Bulldog)
This is Darwinism from the Darwins themselves:
(The Temple of Nature, By Erasmus Darwin)
(On the Origin of Species, By Charles Darwin)
The naturalistic assumptions of the Darwins and Darwinism is the essence of this worldview, they categorically rejected miracles which is something all modernists do.
Making up definitions from Wikipedia, Charles and Erasmus Darwin's own words and citing the man who coined the phrase in the first place. Yea, just pulled it out of my hat.
What part of the 'Darwin' in the term 'Darwinism' is too hard for you to comprehend?
I refused no such thing, I've used them repeatedly, just not to the exclusion of the original source of Darwinism, Charles and Erasmus Darwin.
Then the inevitable ad hominem remarks that tell me you have nothing left:
Except for a few random words ripped from their context:
Don't hold your breath, taking the words of the Pope out of context is against my religion.
Now he turns to the empty, Darwinian Theater of the mind, speaking to rows of empty seats, Papias dramatically proclaims nothing to no one.
The fallacious rhetoric echos through the empty theater, followed by silence.
Universal Common Ancestry is an a priori assumption that all life is the result of natural law, not miraculous interposition. Which is the categorical rejection of God, as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang and you know it.
Universal means everything, what color do you want to make the definition this time? I suggest blue for this correction of something that's not a mistake, purple and orange are already in use.
Round around with the circular argument, weeeeeee....
The inevitable ad hominem spam filler.
Ad hominem, circular argument combo.
That's what Theistic Evolution offers the Christian faith, fallacious rhetoric in place of the clear testimony of Scripture and real world definitions.
Indeed, the ghosts you chase in the fog are elusive. There is a reason for that, you can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth. Now go home so the janitor can sweep your fallacious confetti from the stage.
Have a nice day
Mark
Indeed
Papias said:Dar·win·ism
/ˈdɑrwəˌnɪz
əm/ Show Spelled [dahr-wuh-niz-uhm] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.
Darwinism: Also called Darwinian theory. It originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection
(Darwinism, Wikipedia)
While the term Darwinism had been used previously to refer to the work of Erasmus Darwin in the late 18th century, the term as understood today was introduced when Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species was reviewed by Thomas Henry Huxley in the April 1860 issue of the Westminster Review
(§ 4. Darwin's Bulldog)
This is Darwinism from the Darwins themselves:
"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.
(The Temple of Nature, By Erasmus Darwin)
All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition
(On the Origin of Species, By Charles Darwin)
The naturalistic assumptions of the Darwins and Darwinism is the essence of this worldview, they categorically rejected miracles which is something all modernists do.
Making up definitions from Wikipedia, Charles and Erasmus Darwin's own words and citing the man who coined the phrase in the first place. Yea, just pulled it out of my hat.
We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism.
(Encyclical of Pope Pius X On the Doctrines of Modernists 1907)We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep
(Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)1. Christian culture being attacked on all sides
2. men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful
5.Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things,
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy
(Humani Generis)2. men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful
5.Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things,
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy
What part of the 'Darwin' in the term 'Darwinism' is too hard for you to comprehend?
I refused no such thing, I've used them repeatedly, just not to the exclusion of the original source of Darwinism, Charles and Erasmus Darwin.
Then the inevitable ad hominem remarks that tell me you have nothing left:
Except for a few random words ripped from their context:
Don't hold your breath, taking the words of the Pope out of context is against my religion.
Now he turns to the empty, Darwinian Theater of the mind, speaking to rows of empty seats, Papias dramatically proclaims nothing to no one.
The fallacious rhetoric echos through the empty theater, followed by silence.
Universal Common Ancestry is an a priori assumption that all life is the result of natural law, not miraculous interposition. Which is the categorical rejection of God, as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang and you know it.
Universal means everything, what color do you want to make the definition this time? I suggest blue for this correction of something that's not a mistake, purple and orange are already in use.
Round around with the circular argument, weeeeeee....
The inevitable ad hominem spam filler.
Ad hominem, circular argument combo.
That's what Theistic Evolution offers the Christian faith, fallacious rhetoric in place of the clear testimony of Scripture and real world definitions.
Indeed, the ghosts you chase in the fog are elusive. There is a reason for that, you can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth. Now go home so the janitor can sweep your fallacious confetti from the stage.
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Two thousand years of Church history and another Three thousand for the Hebrew Scriptures, nothing has changed significantly in all that time. There is nothing like this from antiquity attached to a living history, culture, religion, language and in the case of Israel, a national identity. Yet, he doesn't know why it's a bad idea to alter the testimony of Scripture.
Have to wonder why.
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Still trying to conflate Peter's use of myth in verse 16 with his discussion about OT prophecy in v 20. And you still don't understand what the 'private interpretation' is talking about. Peter is saying the prophecy is not the result of the prophet's own ideas.
Except you haven't produced an Lexicons that actually say day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day".I'm pretending that the literal meaning, AKA what it actually says, is what it actually means. While you are showing what it really means by denying what it actually says.
Vintage, theistic evolutionist rhetoric.
Galileo went on trial for heresy because he denied the majority and undisputed interpretation of church fathers and scholars throughout church history. Again you don't have much credibility insisting on a literal interpretation if you do not understand literal interpretation of passages like Joshua 10:12&13 and Eccl 1:5 by church fathers and how it describes the sun moving across the sky in the day time and travelling back to the place it rises at night.
So you admit Galileo was put on trial for contradicting the churches traditional bible interpretation, not because he contradicted science.
The Galilean Library
the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
Notice how the equation is added on by you and is in neither the Strong's nor the Brown-Driver-Briggs references?
Just did.
As I pointed out the verses from Genesis are not part of the Brown-Driver-Briggs refernce, though you keep on posting them as though they were. I have also pointed out they from the King James Bible and a poor translation compared to modern versions.
You are not saying a lot for literalism if you think your equation definition of day is the plain meaning of the text. You seem to read whatever your pet theories are into the text and assume it's the plain meaning all along. As a result you are unable to support your from the text and get upset all ad homy when challenged.
Because I state plain facts that you and Achilles are unable to answer. So far neither you haven't been able to establish your claims about myth, private interpretation, or your equation based definition with a step by step exegesis of the text, just ad homs, handwaving and 'inextricably linked's.
Give us some exegesis, show where it says it in the text and how it says it. Show us a lexicon with your equation. Don't just keep claiming it they it in the hope you can keep convincing yourself.
Yes it is odd that TEs are so much better at recognising the plain meaning of a text than literalist. Perhaps it is because literalists have so much riding on what they want it to say. Or maybe TEs just have a greater respect for the text than literalists.
And you are still confusing literal and real, confusing God work of creation with the written narratives describing creation in Genesis. Athanasius saying that Jesus who saved us is the one who created the world, is not the same as saying the descriptions of creation in Genesis are literal. You won't get anywhere until you recognise the difference. But you refuse to even understand the problem I am pointing out.
Or you could actually address the points and not just pretend you have.Understanding it isn't hard, you either believe it or you don't. From now on when you repeat the question I'll just refer you to this page, feel free to chase it in circles till you drop
Have a nice day
Mark
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Psalm 30:5 For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning.
6 As for me, I said in my prosperity, "I shall never be moved."
Sorry I don't see the connection with Rev 22:18&19. And I don't see how a warning in Revelation not to add or take away from this book of symbols and allegory, can be seen as an instruction to read the bible literally. If anything it should be a warning to Creationism of the high value God place on metaphor, parable, symbols and allegory.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm not the one conflating and confusing Scripture, I don't need to because I believe the Scriptures as written. The source of the Scriptures isn't human or natural, it's God and you know that, you just contradict, conflate and confuse the issue every chance you get, it's really all you do.
Day means Day Definitions
He was there for running afoul to the Aristotelian status quo, to comparisons to Darwinian thought are inescapable. You don't know anything about history or the philosophy of science, it's always been more trouble then it was worth to you. All you think you have to do is contradict Christians who believe the Scriptures as written and you think that makes you some kind of an authority. The Darwinians are laughing at you and the Creationists, by and large, will have nothing to do with you.
Now I have you telling me what the exposition of the text was and I have no reason to trust a word you say. You can't get what I know to be fact right, why should I trust you with the delicate or the obscure? Unless you can confirm any shred of what you are pontificating about, there is no reason to take it seriously. I know what happened to Galileo, I don't think you have a clue.
That had nothing to do with it, it's kind of like your arguments, boilerplate circular rationalizations of the irrelevant. Unlike the Aristotelian mechanics who had proposed ways of reforming and updating Aristotelian mechanics Galileo said to scrap it. At Piza the Catholic status quo was refuted and found themselves in an indefensible position so they resorted to a slanderous psuedo theological political end run. I've read extensively on the subject as well as the Protestant Reformation and the Scientific Revolution. The department chair back in Indianapolis was a philosophy of science major and we talked about history and philosophy for hours. I'm a Liberal Arts major, this is fish in a bucket for me. You don't think I'm going to put something out there in this forum that I'm not sure of do you?
You clearly don't have a clue, I know you don't or you wouldn't have taken the 'day' means 'day' bait. Once you sold out to it, this was over, you haven't been able to make a point since.
The only difference between the KJV and the so called 'modern translations' is Textus Recepticus. There's a little text variation but there isn't a scholar in Christiandom who is saying that it's a 'poor translation' .
No, everything you argue has you has the primary source. because it's pure undiluted opinion you assume that's how Scripture is interpreted. That's not how it works. The Scriptures are canon in their original, not in the translation and no lexicon is based on a translation, but you didn't know that. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the manuscripts and the codex copies of Scripture, a little text variation, but nothing effecting events described or essential doctrine. You didn't know that either.
The reason I don't have to resort to ad hominem fallacies is because I know how to get back to the originals. Unlike you I have actually studied the Scriptures, history and the philosophy of science so what you think about the subject matter is of virtually no consequence.
Creation and salvation are inextricably linked, clutch phrases in circles are not going to change that. Your sinking deeper, this is the part where you arguments start breaking down irreparably. If you didn't sell out to the fallacious rhetoric in the first place you might have a chance of at least keeping it substantive. Better pull up before it sucks you down.
I've been convinced, I'm just exploring different aspects of the exegesis. Your the one arguing in circles and learning nothing in the process.
I haven't seen a theistic evolutionist have a genuine insight or even attempt a valid theological point yet, which is certainly available, if you actually studied the Scriptures and the requisite history and philosophy. You don't because you think just because your an evolutionist that makes you better then Bible believing Christians. I find that so much more fascinating then a pile of dead bones and dirt.
Ahhhhhhhh...so you did get the point, you understood the passage all along. Now let's consider if salvation is literal or figurative.
I don't blame you, you are one of the worst on here but it's still not your fault. It would be different if I thought you actually understood the issues but you are remiss in the most rudimentary arguments, I don't think you even know what is being argued here.
I'm an evangelical dude, do you know what that means? It means I argue to and from the Scriptures, there is no way I'm going to be careless or allow an error into one of my expositions. Scientific literature I can take some liberties with but never the Scriptures and certainly not the original.
You think you can just mimic my arguments and they will work for you the same as they work for me, another critical mistake. There's nothing fallacious in my arguments and I deliberately use something I know is irrefutably true and I know you will deny because you think you must. You go for the bait every single time and for conscience sake I will even offer you an explanation for the trap and how to avoid it, you just ignore me which is priceless.
Your down to scratch arguing against the obvious, I didn't tell you to do it, I just set you up for it. As many times you go down that blind alley in the dark, your going to get mugged. I wouldn't do it so much if you didn't make it so darn easy.
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
God inspiring scripture doesn't help you when you read things into the texts they don't say. You still need to be able to show your claims from scripture rather than just claim they are 'inextricably linked'.
'Day mean Day Definitions' don't help your claim day is
"defined as evening plus morning equals one day."
Are you going to back that claim up or admit you got it wrong? I could understand you dropping the claim and and ignoring my requests you back it up, but I don't know how you can keep pretending you answered it.
Galileo's laws of motion ran foul of the Aristotelian status quo, but he wasn't put on trial for it. Instead his mechanics were adopted by all the armies of Europe. His trial was for heresy.
Internet History Sourcebooks
The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above,hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture
Of course you can go on believing Galileo was tried for disagreeing with Aristotelian science if you want. The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above,hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture
Since I have shown you Galileo was tried for heresy and contradicting scripture, which you 'knew' was wrong, perhaps you could pay a bit more attention to what I have said about the literal meaning of Joshua and Ecclesiastes, especially since, as the quote from Cardinal Bellarmine pointed out the literal interpretation was the common agreement of Church Fathers and commentaries up until then.
I have shown you how the Catholic Church was concerned about Galileo contradicting the literal interpretation of the bible in 1615, 18 years before his trial in 1633 and that his trial was for heresy and contradicting scripture. What evidence have you for your conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church wasn't really interested in scripture and the teaching of the Church Fathers and that it was all just a pretext because he annoyed the Aristotelian scientific establishment?
I love it! Your utter humiliation over day being "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" was just 'bait'.
I don't know your reason for bringing up textual variation or the Textus Recepticus which is NewTestament. I am talking about the Hebrew for Genesis 1 and the poor translation of Gen 1:5 etc in the KJV. And if it is such a good translation of the Hebrew, why don't modern translations follow the meaning of the KJV?
Odd you haven't been able to provide any primary sources other than yourself for day being "defined as evening plus morning equals one day." I do agree if resort to ad homs instead of substantive argument it is evidence you can't support your claims.
I'd love to to have a substantive discussion with you, but you don't even try. I've asked you to provide evidence from Lexicons for "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" or give some exegesis for it from the text, but you don't. I've asked you to show from the text of Peter that he said the OT wasn't myth, or to justify your interpretation of 'private interpretation'. You haven't. And you still claim "Creation and salvation are inextricably linked" without addressing my point about the difference between literal and real, and between the actual creation and the creation narratives in Genesis. Again you refused to engage in any meaningful discussion
Saying you have been convinced is not much help if you can't articulate a meaningful argument, exegesis, or show a lexicon to support the idea.
No it's not because I accept evolution. I was actually surprised and saddened to see that literalists are so poor at reading the plain meaning of the text and are so willing to twist the text to make it fit what they think it should say.
I have understood your point all along, and spotted your confusion over literal and real, which you highlight again here asking ''if salvation is literal or figurative''. Salvation is real. The gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are literal, but the Good Shepherd and 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the word' are figurative, because in both those descriptions of salvation, shepherd and lamb are metaphors for Jesus who was neither sheep nor sheep minder.
If you came up with some real arguments I'd have a better chance at understanding them, instead you dodge and pretend to have presented a case, and I have to content myself with pointing that out. I would much prefer if you came up with real arguments then I could take them apart and you could try to defend yourself or point out where I had misunderstood your point. But you would have to make a real point for that to happen.I don't blame you, you are one of the worst on here but it's still not your fault. It would be different if I thought you actually understood the issues but you are remiss in the most rudimentary arguments, I don't think you even know what is being argued here.
I'm an evangelical dude, do you know what that means? It means I argue to and from the Scriptures, there is no way I'm going to be careless or allow an error into one of my expositions. Scientific literature I can take some liberties with but never the Scriptures and certainly not the original.
You think you can just mimic my arguments and they will work for you the same as they work for me, another critical mistake. There's nothing fallacious in my arguments and I deliberately use something I know is irrefutably true and I know you will deny because you think you must. You go for the bait every single time and for conscience sake I will even offer you an explanation for the trap and how to avoid it, you just ignore me which is priceless.
Your down to scratch arguing against the obvious, I didn't tell you to do it, I just set you up for it. As many times you go down that blind alley in the dark, your going to get mugged. I wouldn't do it so much if you didn't make it so darn easy.
Have a nice day
Mark
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yes I did but if you want to ignore the obvious that's your prerogative. Creation is an ex nihileo, de novo just as the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth are all miracles by divine fiat but Theistic Evolutionists can just deny the clear testimony of Scripture, arguing in circles. Let's move on to why the historicity of Genesis and Creation are foundational to Christian theism and you can make your fallacious denials:
We would therefore postulate the following propositions:
- The Book of Genesis has no doctrinal value if it is not authoritative.
- The Book of Genesis is not authoritative if it is not true. For if it is not history, it is not reliable; and if it is not revelation, it is not authoritative.
- The Book of Genesis is not true if it is not from God. For if it is not from God, it is not inspired; and if it is not inspired, it possesses to us no doctrinal value whatever.
- The Book of Genesis is not direct from God if it is a heterogeneous compilation of mythological folklore by unknowable writers.
- If the Book of Genesis is a legendary narrative, anonymous, indefinitely erroneous, and the persons it described the mere mythical personifications of tribal genius, it is of course not only non-authentic, because nonauthenticated, but an insufficient basis for doctrine. The residuum of dubious truth, which might with varying degrees of consent be extracted therefrom, could never be accepted as a foundation for the superstructure of eternally trustworthy doctrine, for it is an axiom that that only is of doctrinal value which is God's Word. Mythical and legendary fiction, and still more, erroneous and misleading tradition, are incompatible not only with the character of the God of all truth, but with the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and absolute authority of the Word of God. We have not taken for our credentials cleverly invented myths. The primary documents, if there were such, were collated and revised and re-written by Moses by inspiration of God.
The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis, R. A. Torrey
In case you have lost track I have accumulated Concordance, Lexicon and Dictionary definitions indicating 'Day' means 'Day', now to the foundational exposition I am adding doctrinal expositions from Christian Apologetics old and new, R.A. Torrey and Athanasius:
The renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation Athanasius, On the Incarnation
In response you have you as the only authority for your position, based on your assertion alone. A fallacy known as circular reasoning, AKA 'begging the question of proof.
No, I'm just not going to let you bury the considerable proofs accumulated over the course of the thread. Instead of repeating them, I can refute your pedantic denials with a link.
My position remains unchanged and unchallenged, unsubstantiated claims do not effect it in the slightest.
Mark Kennedy said:
Galileo's argument was that 'the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work', he has since been exonerated, not that he was ever proved wrong. Galileo never produced Biblical expositions in favor of his views of Cosmology or astronomy. The literal interpretation was in keeping with the contemporary astronomy of their day and it's in keeping with modern astronomy, it's irrelevant. When the sun stands still in Joshua it has nothing to do with whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. Absolutely nothing and you know it.
Exactly!
I was feeling kind of guilty for baiting you into an impossible argument. You have been arguing that 'day' does not mean 'day' in Scripture and unable to substantiate any basis for it, yet you persist. After being refuted, decisively every single time you think I'm humiliated? You're really that narcissistic.
First of all there isn't a dimes worth of difference in any of the legitimate manuscripts, the modern translations don't use Textus Recepticus specifically because of the variant text. The New King James includes note on the variant text:
Genesis 1:2 Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.
Genesis 1:26 Syriac reads all the wild animals of. (NKJV)
Genesis 1:26 Syriac reads all the wild animals of. (NKJV)
That's it, not a dimes worth of difference.
Day means Day Definitions includes the Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום, stating clearly 'as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1'
That's where you and I are different, I actually have source material.
That's exactly what you are doing, you are twisting the Scriptures to mean something, anything, other then what they actually say. Your denials are fallacious, circular rhetoric that convinces no one including you.
So salvation is real but creation is fake? Or is salvation only real if you take it figuratively? Can't you be consistent?
Oh but I do make real points and they are building.
It is a revelation of the one, personal, living, God. There is in the ancient philosophic cosmogony no trace of the idea of such a Being, still less of such a Creator, for all other systems began and ended with pantheistic, materialistic, or hylozoistic conceptions. The Divine Word stands unique in declaring the absolute idea of the living God, without attempt at demonstration...
Further, we have in this sublime revelation of Genesis the doctrinal foundation of:
Further, we have in this sublime revelation of Genesis the doctrinal foundation of:
- The unity of the human race.
- The fall of man.
- The plan of redemption.
(The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis, R. A. Torrey)
No Christian scholar, Theistic Evolutionist or otherwise, would try to argue their position you are tying to. You stubbornly deny the clear testimony of Scripture, why I have no idea. You make indefensible, utterly untrue statements and argue them in circles endlessly, again, why I don't know.
If you want to argue like this I have no problem with it, I'll just keep shooting the fish you bring to me in buckets. Every round will accumulate more resources and a more refined defense of the Creation doctrine.
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
No you only used your 'inextricably linked's to back up your claim Peter was referring to OT scripture when he said his eyewitness testimony of the transfiguration wasn't a cleverly devised myth. If you can't back up your assertions don't claim they're 'obvious'.
Don't see what any of that has to do with you claims:
(1) Day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"
(2) Peter was referring to OT scripture when talked about cleverly devised myth.
(3) Peter's reference to 'private interpretation' refers to our interpretation of rather than the prophet's.
Or
(4) Your continuing confusion between real and literal, and between the Genesis descriptions of Creation and the work of creation itself.
But I suppose if you can't defend the issues you are challenged on, you might as well pretend you were asked about something else.
Need I point out that that Jesus' parables are authoritative without being historically true.
No I have kept good track on the issues you have brought up and haven't been able to defend.
(1) Day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"
(2) Peter was referring to OT scripture when talked about cleverly devised myth.
(3) Peter's reference to 'private interpretation' refers to our interpretation of rather than the prophet's.
(4) Your continuing confusion between real and literal, and between the Genesis descriptions of Creation and the work of creation itself.
None of which have anything to do with the claims of your I asked you about.
No point in repeating Athanasius either if you you don't address you confusion between real and literal and between the actual creation that Athanasius is talking about and the literal interpretation of Genesis.
A link to a previous post where you evaded the question.
Sound about right from you p.o.v.. A link to Fordham Jesuit University of New York, giving an English translation of the text Galileo's trial verdict showing he was condemned for heresy and contradicting scripture is an 'unsubstantiated claim' No wonder your position remains unchanged and unchallenged in you mind.
Except that's not the literal interpretation of church fathers and commentators before Galileo as I have shown you from texts of the time.
Exactly what? That you think it was a conspiracy but you don't have any evidence for your conspiracy theory?
If you have been able to refute you might have a point.
Incidentally, you made your "evening and morning equals one day" claims talking to Lopez, not me. That was bait for me? And if you were going to bait a trap for me, wouldn't you choose ground you could defend?
Manuscript differences are your idea, I have said all along the issue is the bad translation or archaic English in the
KJV's Gen 1:5 And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Compare that to the JPS And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
And has do nothing to support your claim that day is "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" Which is what I asked you for.
Why not show us some? Relevant source material that is.
Then perhaps you can show from scripture that Peter was talking about the OT when he said
2Pet 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honour and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
You are twisting the text to make it suit your purposes when you claim this was about OT scriptures rather than Peter's eyewitness of the Transfiguration when
Matt 17:5 a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
See, you still can't tell real from literal, or literal from figurative. I have explained it to you a couple of time already in this discussion, as well as in previous discussions. but you don't want to even understand my point enough so you could try to refute it properly. Of course if you did understand it you might realise I was right. Maybe that is what is keeping you back from trying to understand the issue.
What has any of that got to do with what I have kept asking you, to back up your claims:
(1) Day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"
(2) Peter was referring to OT scripture when talked about cleverly devised myth.
(3) Peter's reference to 'private interpretation' refers to our interpretation of rather than the prophet's.
(4) Your continuing confusion between real and literal, and between the Genesis descriptions of Creation and the work of creation itself.
I am beginning to feel like I've stumbled into the middle of an argument between you and your imaginary friend. Certainly the positions you have striven so valiantly to refute have had nothing to do with what I have said to you.
I'll keep bringing the fish and you can keep shooting imaginary buckets.If you want to argue like this I have no problem with it, I'll just keep shooting the fish you bring to me in buckets. Every round will accumulate more resources and a more refined defense of the Creation doctrine.
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[origin] for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God [NU-Text reads but men spoke from God.] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21)
Clearly Peter is speaking of prophecy, not just his prophetic witness, when he says 'holy men of God'. Peter says, 'No prophecy of Scripture', indicating the inspiration of Old and New Testament as well as any prophetic oracles proceeding directly from God.
There you go again, denying the obvious in circles.
An argument from incredulity (ignorance) which is caused not by a lack of proof but rather you're refusal to acknowledge clear and obvious facts.
Prophecy includes all Old and New Testament inspiration and authority.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
A creation is by definition a 'work' of creation, that's just common sense, your arguing in circles again. Now a context sensitive meaning like the finished creation and the act of creation allows a logical distinction but you don't do logical distinctions, you just deny the obvious in circles.
Your scarping the bottom of the barrel for ad hominems now, there isn't even enough there to argue in circles. It's sad when you fall into your own fallacious trap, pitiful even.
There are no parables in Genesls, it's a New Testament comparison indicated by 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context. All figurative language has clear indicators in the immediate or proximate context. The only poetic license used in Genesis 1 is the repeated statement that Adam was 'Created', ('bara' H1254 בָּרָא ), the Qal form meaning: to shape, fashion, create, always with God as subject. Used in reference to the creation of the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and 3x in the creation of man (Gen. 1:27)
In the beginning God created H1254 the heaven and the earth. (Gen 1:1)
And God created H1254 great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. ( Gen 1:21)
So God created H1254 man in his own image, in the image of God created H1254 he him; male and female created H1254 he them. (Gen 1:27)
So God created H1254 man in his own image, in the image of God created H1254 he him; male and female created H1254 he them.
And God created H1254 great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. ( Gen 1:21)
So God created H1254 man in his own image, in the image of God created H1254 he him; male and female created H1254 he them. (Gen 1:27)
So God created H1254 man in his own image, in the image of God created H1254 he him; male and female created H1254 he them.
Which is straight out of the Lexicon, Dictionary and Concordance definitions as well as the clear meaning of the text in English. You deny this in spite of all evidence proving your assertion false, against all dictates of conscience, logic and simple common sense.
Prophecy is regarded as authoritative whether the prophetic oracles of Moses in Genesis or Peter's eye witness account of Christ at the Transfiguration. The revelation of Moses and Joshua was confirmed by signs, miracles and God's righteous deeds, just as they were in the time of Elijah and Elisha and Christ and the Apostles.
This is not only evident it's obvious, if you can't see it the problem is with you not the clear testimony of the Word of God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Acts 28:27)
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Acts 28:27)
No prophecy is of private interpretation, yet another example of a Theistic Evolutionist denying the obvious in circles.
Antonyms for 'literal' are 'unreal', 'figurative' and 'fake'. 'Literal' Thesaurus.com . There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Around, around he goes, arguing in circles around the obvious.
Except that salvation and creation are inextricably linked.
I've answered it every time you asked it and always with fresh material in support of the obvious, you respond with nothing but pedantic denials and fallacious arguments.
Protestants were burned at the stake for preaching justification by faith alone, that doesn't make Rome right or their arguments Biblical.
Spam formatting of pedantic special pleading isn't substantive reasoning.
Evidence is beyond you, I'm well acquainted with Galileo's trial and the political intrigue that caused it. Quoting a text without a context is a pretext and the trial of Galileo is a prime example of it.
Pedantic ad hominem based on circular logic.
You have continually denied it as he did and all Theistic Evolutionists must. He just knew when to quit.
The original text remains unchanged because there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the manuscripts or the translations. A point that continues to elude you because you refuse to accept the message, not the exegesis and translation of the original.
Which was provided every time you argued that in circles, the truth does not change because you refuse to admit it.
Which I have done in every single post responding to your arguments from incredulity and it's done nothing but get stronger.
Ok, your just repeating yourself endlessly. Chase the pedantic denials in circles till you drop it doesn't concern me in the slightest. As is always the case you have been left with nothing in support of your arguments except fallacious ad hominem remarks in contradiction of the facts. Since you are determined to argue them in circles I see no reason to chase your pedantic rationalizations of the obvious in circles around the mulberry bush.
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ChetSinger
Well-Known Member
I gotta admit, I admire you two guy's willingness to repeatedly engage in such detail, turning over every rock. I wouldn't have that much patience myself. Cheers!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
