What's wrong with evolution?

[DailyBlessings]

What may seem as contradictions usually aren't when interpreted in the right way.

 

[AV1611VET]

What may seem as contradictions usually aren't when interpreted in the right way.

Here's a good example:

Jesus was crucified at 0900 and died on the cross at 1500. The sun went dark from 1200 to 1500 (noon to three).

How do you reconcile these two seeming contradictions:

[bible]Matthew 27:45[/bible][bible]Mark 15:33[/bible][bible]Luke 23:44[/bible]

Notice it's the sixth hour (noon) when the sun goes dark; and Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus on the cross?

[bible]John 19:14[/bible]

Notice where John has Jesus on the sixth hour, here?

How can He be standing in front of Pilate awaiting His sentence - AND - be on the cross at the same time?

Do you see that sometimes what seems to be a contradiction, really isn't, if you take it in context?

 

[Chalnoth]

Seems to me you explained a perfect contradiction. I don't see how you've reconciled it at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems to me you explained a perfect contradiction. I don't see how you've reconciled it at all.

I didn't --- I asked Daily Blessings how it's reconciled.

 

[tocis]

What may seem as contradictions usually aren't when interpreted in the right way. At first, the Bible seems to be full of errors and contradictions; until you read it over, and the more you read it and study it, the more the contradictions fade away.

Wrong.

You may well be able to make some sense out of the contradictions, in your very own personal interpretation of the text, but that does not make the contradictions disappear.
For example, you may be able to explain to yourself how the different genealogies of jesus in the gospels can fit together, but that still leaves the original text with the contradiction. And considering that the same original makes all kinds of different sense to different people, it's safe to say that the original doesn't make much sense from the start.

Yes, this means that you lost.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, this means that you lost.

What did he lose? Should we help him look for whatever it was he lost? Far to often what gets lost is the truth when people exchange the truth for a lie.

Romans 1:25
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, this means that you lost.

No --- Satan loses when we resolve "contradictions" in the Scriptures.

It's much easier to just call something a contradiction, than it is to do the research, isn't it?

"Contradictions" = lazy mens' interpretations.

 

[Tomk80]

No --- Satan loses when we resolve "contradictions" in the Scriptures.

It's much easier to just call something a contradiction, than it is to do the research, isn't it?

"Contradictions" = lazy mens' interpretations.

In my personal opinion, a lot of the times that contradictions are 'resolved', it seems to me this resolution is just extremely far-fetched. Which means the contradictions are just that, contradictions, and the resolutions are actually just far-fetched attempts to make the text say something it doesn't. But maybe you can convince me otherwise by resolving the contradiction you gave above?

 

[JohnR7]

In my personal opinion, a lot of the times that contradictions are 'resolved', it seems to me this resolution is just extremely far-fetched.

What is the difference between a contradiction and a paradox?
One thing is for sure, it is a sign of intelligence to be able to deal with paradoxes.
So if you want to say the appearent contradictions can not be resolved then we will understand.

 

[dawiyd]

No --- Satan loses when we resolve "contradictions" in the Scriptures.

It's much easier to just call something a contradiction, than it is to do the research, isn't it?

"Contradictions" = lazy mens' interpretations.

Another of the more involved historical problems arises from Luke 2:1-2, which says, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (and this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"

Basic problems with this are:

History says nothing about a taxing (census) ever being taken of the whole Roman world. The KJV says, "All the world should be taxed"; yet no such decree was issued by Augustus. He not only never issued a general decree but never attempted a uniform assessment. Taxes were done province by province.

When Jesus was born, the governor of Syria was not Cyrenius. Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until nearly ten years after the death of Herod and Matthew 2:1 says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king..."

If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod as Matthew says, Joseph [the husband of Jesus' mother], whether a resident of Judea or of Galilee, could not have been taxed by Augustus in any event, since neither province was then a part of Roman Syria. Both provinces belonged to Herod's kingdom and Herod's subjects were not taxed by the Romans.

Cyrenius made a census in Palestine but this occurred ten years after the death of Herod, during whose reign Jesus [is alleged to have been] born. On pages 87 and 88 in Bible Difficulties [Christian apologist W.] Arndt makes the following admission,

"We now come to the charge that Luke became guilty of an error in ascribing the governorship of Syria at the time of the birth of Jesus to Cyrenius. That we are here facing a difficulty is undeniable... The list of Roman governors of Syria for the last years of the reign of Herod the Great (and it will be remembered that Jesus was born while Herod was still living) does not include Cyrenius. ...Since Herod died in 4 B. C., Jesus must have been born about 6 to 4 B. C. ...Cyrenius was not governor when the Savior appeared."

The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1995):


Sounds like a contradiction and an error to me

 

[Tomk80]

What is the difference between a contradiction and a paradox?

Euh, a paradox is an apparant contradiction, that's the difference.

One thing is for sure, it is a sign of intelligence to be able to deal with paradoxes.

On the other hand, not every contradiction is a paradox. Sometimes contradictions are just that, contradictions.

So if you want to say the appearent contradictions can not be resolved then we will understand.

I'd say that every single contradiction can probably be 'resolved' or treated as a paradox if one really wants to. The question is whether this resolution of the contradiction is anywhere near likely or logical.

 

[AV1611VET]

In my personal opinion, a lot of the times that contradictions are 'resolved', it seems to me this resolution is just extremely far-fetched. Which means the contradictions are just that, contradictions, and the resolutions are actually just far-fetched attempts to make the text say something it doesn't.

But then, you wouldn't know, would you? Not until you did independent research and came to another conclusion, could you make such a statement.

But maybe you can convince me otherwise by resolving the contradiction you gave above?

Maybe I'll just wait and let Daily Blessings answer it, since he's the one that gave me the DOH smiley.

If not, I'll be glad to, since that particular one appears to be a glaring contradiction, yet is one of the easiest to clear up.

 

[JohnR7]

Euh, a paradox is an apparant contradiction, that's the difference.

So what do you call it when God just does not show something to someone.

Matthew 18:3
and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Tomk80]

So what do you call it when God just does not show something to someone.

Matthew 18:3
and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Your point being?

 

[Tomk80]

But then, you wouldn't know, would you? Not until you did independent research and came to another conclusion, could you make such a statement.

What if you did indepent research and stuck to the old one?

Maybe I'll just wait and let Daily Blessings answer it, since he's the one that gave the the DOH smiley.

If not, I'll be glad to, since that particular one appears to be a glaring contradiction, yet is one of the easiest to clear up.

Fair enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if you did indepent research and stuck to the old one?

If two people do independent research, and one concludes it's a contradiction, and the other proves it otherwise, I'd say the other is correct, and the one is wrong.

Here's one --- a wee bit harder --- yet easy --- just for you:

Reconcile this "glaring contradiction", using CONTEXT as your method of exegesis:

[bible]Daniel 1:1[/bible][bible]Jeremiah 25:1[/bible]

 

[JohnR7]

Your point being?

A persons lack of understanding could just be that God is not showing them. As Christians we run into this all the time. God shows us things that He does not always snow to people who are perishing.

 

[Tomk80]

A persons lack of understanding could just be that God is not showing them. As Christians we run into this all the time. God shows us things that He does not always snow to people who are perishing.

Why would God not show his existence? What kind of cruel God are you describing here?

 

[BVZ]

What may seem as contradictions usually aren't when interpreted in the right way. At first, the Bible seems to be full of errors and contradictions; until you read it over, and the more you read it and study it, the more the contradictions fade away.

Which is EXACTLY my point. You have to interpret the bible, not take it litarally.

That is correct --- there are passages that are literal and passages that are figurative.

Context --- context --- context --- I cannot stress enough letting the context decide how a passage is to be interpreted. You don't interpret the phone book figuratively, and you don't interpret Alice in Wonderland literally.

See? You use the context. I agree. Thats what you are supposed to do. When I use the context of genesis, it tells me not to take it litarally. When YOU look at the context of genesis, it tells you the oppisite.

Basically, your whole 'context' mechanism for deciding when to take something litarally, boils down to every individual's opinion.

Independent third parties, Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries, Bible churches, and the like.

Yes, you can also rely on the opinion of others.

Because there's a real devil out there using divide-and-conquer tactics to ruin the New Testament church. Also, other denominations exist depending on what parts of Scripture they place their emphases.

(emphasis mine)

Depending on which parts the context told them they should take literally, and which parts not to perhaps?

As I said, there are checks and balances in place that make it hard to go astray.

That is why I asked you to describe the process. You call them checks and balances, thats fine. Describe them.

The earth used to be one tropical paradise before the Fall, thanks to the water canopy. After the Flood, natural selection took its toll.

Ok... you can beleive that, I dont have a problem. Just as long as you agree that natural selection exists.

Yes and no. The organisms couldn't die, so long as Adam obeyed God. If he didn't obey God --- death would be the result.

Yes. They disobeyed God, and so, he created natural selection. Again, as long as you agree that natural selection exists.

In a sense, yes.

In a sense? Either he did, or he didn't. The alternative is that he and the devil teamed up to create natural selection. Again, I don't REALLY care, as long as you agree that natural selection exists.

[bible]Isaiah 45:7[/bible]

And like I said, even though that verse is primarily talking about war, it can be applied to natural selection, in my opinion.

Ok.

My faith can waiver, and even change. Therefore, I refrain from saying things like that, and prefer instead to say "...it is against the Bible".

Ok. I should have been clearer. Thats basically what I meant. When I said 'faith', I was speaking to the set of rules and guidelines prescribed by your specific brand of religion.

I'm sure you don't --- but until this country starts endorsing censorship, I'll say what's on my mind, as long as I abide by the rules.

This is disturbing to me. You ADMIT that you know nothing about evolution. (And consequently about bioligy and science in general.)

In response to this I state that since you don't know what you are talking about, you shouldn't say anything about it. Especially when you use one part of science (thermodynamics) to attack another (biology).

Does it surprise you that your arguments are weak, when you dont know what you are talking about?

My point is this:
You can't argue against something you don't understand. You think evolution is your enemy right? KNOW YOUR ENEMY.

Wait until I claim it's against my faith, first.

Are you saying that evolution is not against your faith? What exactly is the problem then?

I said it exists on a microevolutionary level. It does not exist on a macroevolutionary level.

Since micro and macro evolution is the same thing, if it exists for the one, it exists for the other. Simple logic.

Then why the distinction? Why not just call it evolution, like they used to?

I rarely hear people who know what they are talking about use the words macro- and micro evolution. They only use it in response to people who DONT know what they are talking about using it.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

Look at it this way.

Micro evolution = 1.
Micro evolution * 10 = Microish evolution.
Micro evolution * 100000000000 = Macro evolution.

Macro evolution is simply what you get when micro evolution has happened a lot of times in a row over a time period.

Heres another way of looking at is:

1 step can be seen as micro evolution.
50000 steps can be seen as macro evolution.

If you can take 1 step, why not 50000?

That's right. And after the walk, a kilometer is still a kilometer, and I'm still a walker. I can even walk back, if I want; and if others walk faster than I do, I won't be victimized by 'natural selection'.

Thats another problem. Analogies are meant to help someone who does not understand visualise something complex. You take something unfamiliar to the person, and compare it to something familiar. Then this happens. What on earth are you going on about?

The distance is the amount of change accumulated in a population. Micro evolution is when a small amount of change has accumulated. (100m). Macro evolution is when some more has accumulated. (50000m).

Not if God set up boundaries. You'll eventually reach a dead-end before you macroevolve.

If God set up boudaries it would be impossible. Since it is NOT impossible, since it HAS BEEN OBSERVED God did not put up boundaries.

He has decided, and put His decision in writing. Now the decision-making process is over, and it's time to abide by His decisions.

Do you agree that nothing happens without God deciding that it should happen? Speciation happens, so God MUST have wanted it to happen. Evolution HAPPENS so God must have wanted it to happen.

Why would he want evolution to happen?

I dont know.

And neither do you.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why would God not show his existence? What kind of cruel God are you describing here?

Are you familiar with the Bable Fish proof?