is creation outside of science's scope?

[theFijian]

Why limit this to evolution? Why not special relativity, the idea gas equation, antibiotics or chemotherapy?

Because this would show up how fallacious his reasoning is.

 

[Assyrian]

the same appeals tothe same tired old arguments, your going to the absurd just shows you refuse to be rational, constructive or even cordial.

I make the same tired old arguments because you keep making the same tired old claims. You were not able to answer with my arguments before, so I am quite happy to bring the questions up again.

But yes they do sound absurd. I am glad you realise it. But unless you can show that the absurdity lies in my applying your argument about one science, evolution, to other sciences, then the conclusion is that it was your original argument that was absurd.

As for cordial, just try not being abusive all the time and we can work on that.

i have proven my contention with this thread and after repeated ostings no one will or canrefute what i have provenabout science being outside of the scope of science.

that point has been proved science loses.

you don't get it. when a person chooses jesus as their Savior, they have entered into the kingdom of God and that means they follow God not the world.

just because one is saved by God's grace does it give permission to disobey Him and return to the ways of the world and create alternatives to His words.

God said it Himself: "why do ye call me Lord Lord but do not do the things i say"

if you say you have chosen to follow God then you have no freedom to dismiss gen. 1 or revelations, no freedom to add evolution when evolution is solely a human/deception construct.

you follow and preach what God says nothing else. which is why i started that thread, 'when did God say...' because God has never said to follow science's 'evidence' or interpretations.

He said 'follow me' or 'the just shall live by faith' turning and following secular science is not doing either.

You don't take 'the four corners of the earth' or 'the ends of the heavens' literally do you? You do not believe the sun literally 'hurries around the earth' or that the earth literally 'does not move'? Why is there no conflict between accepting what science tells about the shape and motion of the earth and following God, but you do think there is a conflict between interpreting Genesis figuratively and following him? It is a double standard. You condemn TEs for something you do yourself with other sciences.

 

[archaeologist]

You don't take 'the four corners of the earth' or 'the ends of the heavens' literally do you? You do not believe the sun literally 'hurries around the earth' or that the earth literally 'does not move'

how i take them is of no concern of yours but your accusations that the Bible teaches erroneous things is misleading and false.

you are looking for an open door to extrapolate certain elements to the passages you wish to ignore or change to fit what you want to believe instead of believing what God said.

Gen. 1:24 does not refer or intimate a natural process plus you do not have any other scripture to back up a claim that it does.

You were not able to answer with my arguments before, so I am quite happy to bring the questions up again.

i have answered them, this kind of statement just clouds the issue. and i am not abusive, all abuse has originated with those who hold to alternatives from God's word.

 

[theIdi0t]

God said it Himself: "why do ye call me Lord Lord but do not do the things i say"

if you say you have chosen to follow God then you have no freedom to dismiss gen. 1 or revelations, no freedom to add evolution when evolution is solely a human/deception construct.

Archie, why do you equate reading genesis 1 as allegorical to dismissing it? If I say that Jesus is not a literal lamb, but an allegorical lamb, or that Jesus will not return with a literal sword protruding out of his mouth, but an allegorical sword, would you say that I was being dismissive? If I say the story of the Good Samaritan is not based on a historical event, would you then say I was being dismissive as well?

you follow and preach what God says nothing else. which is why i started that thread, 'when did God say...' because God has never said to follow science's 'evidence' or interpretations.

So, did God say the Good Samaritan story was historical? How do we determine these things archie? Did he say the "Tree of Life" was literal? Perhaps he should have reminded the the writer of Proverbs:

Proverbs 3:18
She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed.
Proverbs 11:30
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise.
Proverbs 13:12
Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.
Proverbs 15:4
The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.

Tell me archie, are these trees of life to be taken as literal trees made of bark and leaves? And what determines if it is or not?

 

[archaeologist]

why do you equate reading genesis 1 as allegorical to dismissing it?

because you remove actual events from our history and change them to fit what secular science says ignoring the rest of scriptures which tells us not to follow the world, lean unto our own understanding, , that God created in 6 days and so on.

you are dismissing the words from God, demoting them to arbitrary thoughts of man for a purpose not intended by God.

If I say that Jesus is not a literal lamb, but an allegorical lamb, or that Jesus will not return with a literal sword protruding out of his mouth, but an allegorical sword, would you say that I was being dismissive

but you are not replacing those words with secular constructs as you are with Genesis. youare keeping the literal meaning, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb for our sins; Jesus will return not as a sacrifice but coming as a king.

there is a big difference between what you are doing with genesis and what you are doing there in the new testament.

If I say the story of the Good Samaritan is not based on a historical event, would you then say I was being dismissive as well?

possibly, because we do not know if it was or wasn't. here is what the oxford dictionary says about the word 'parable': 'a short story that teaches a moral or spiritual lesson...'

it is highly possible that it was a true event, we do not know.

did God say the Good Samaritan story was historical? How do we determine these things archie? Did he say the "Tree of Life" was literal?

1. not so many words, just usually used the word parable but would Jesus make up a false story to make a moral point? think it through.

2. The Holy Spirit guides us to the truth. i wish i could say more but i do not have everything at my fingertips, sorry.

3. by the words used, the actions involved then yes He did. read the story of the fall again and see how it all unfolds. everything is written to tell us it was literal.

again, don't relate the uses of the words 'tree of life' as meaning THE tree of life. we know these type of expressions in today's world as well.

there is only one true tree of life and if it weren't real, i highly doubt solomon would have used those words when he wrote proverbs. no one would know what he meant.

Tell me archie, are these trees of life to be taken as literal trees made of bark and leaves? And what determines if it is or not?

i always hedge my answers as i know people are looking for openings to justify their beliefs which differ from the Bible. you already know i can only say know and then you will go 'aha ...' well all i will say here is...

'the original tree of life has to be real, literal and alluding to an actual tree because all the israelites and those who beleive the Bible know exactly what is meant by the passage'

an allegorical or metaphorical original tree of life would hold no meaning to anyone and every example thereafter would be dismissed as false as the allegorical original. nothing would be gained by making the original tree imaginary.

there is just so much more here at stake than you realize

 

[theFijian]

So have you thrown out your new testament with all those allegories from Jesus?

 

[archaeologist]

if that is all you have to say then i am wasting my words.

 

[Assyrian]

how i take them is of no concern of yours

Sure it is, if you preach at us that we are not following God but do the same things yourself.

but your accusations that the Bible teaches erroneous things is misleading and false.

You only think they are false interpretations because you believe secular science, secular science that you claim is deceived by the devil. When we interpret passages figuratively you say we are making excuses for following worldly science and not believing God's word.

you are looking for an open door to extrapolate certain elements to the passages you wish to ignore or change to fit what you want to believe instead of believing what God said.

Like you believe the earth is round? Either it is right to look for different interpretation when science shows us an interpetation is wrong, and this applies to evolution just as well as a spherical earth and heliocentrism, or we stick to a literal meaning and the bible contradicts them all. Anything else is double standards and inconsistency.

Gen. 1:24 does not refer or intimate a natural process plus you do not have any other scripture to back up a claim that it does.

There are plenty of scripture that show God using natural processes. You have never answered about Isaiah 54:16, did God use natural processes to create the blacksmith? That is no different from what Gen 1:24 tells us, that God ordained the natural world to produce different species.

You were not able to answer with my arguments before, so I am quite happy to bring the questions up again.

i have answered them,

Oh you have tried all right, usually by calling on another of your unfounded arguments or claims about evolution. But you can only change the argument, or claim it is absurd, or refuse to answer. You have never been able to support the actual claims my 'tired old arguments' answered.

this kind of statement just clouds the issue. and i am not abusive, all abuse has originated with those who hold to alternatives from God's word.

That is because you think calling people 'Christians' in inverted commas, saying they don't believe God's word, or the don't follow God, or that they are 'looking for an excuse to ignore God's word and follow their own desires' is not abuse. Until you realise how abusive you really are, you will not get very cordial responses from people.

 

[theFijian]

if that is all you have to say then i am wasting my words.

If you really must be spoonfed! Why is it ok for God to teach in allegory in the new testament but not the old??

 

[theFijian]

God spoke for all His creation, why would verse 24 be any different?

there was no natural process used. where does it say that God created evolution and He used evolution to form all things?

you are reading into a verse and ignoring everything else.

Still waiting for a valid exegesis of v24 Archie. The above is simply a bald assertion with no substance, please explain why God commanded the earth to bring forth. If God created what did the earth have to do with anything?

 

[busterdog]

If you really must be spoonfed! Why is it ok for God to teach in allegory in the new testament but not the
old??

I like that logic. Let me apply it. God said that John the Baptist literally ate locuts. Therefore, everything in the Bible is meant literally.

Same logic. Better result.

The result is, you get to deal with and craft a basis for exceptions to the rule on the basis of the text itself, not us literalists. I sit back and crack a cold one.

Or we can both sit back, have a beer, and decide that some use of a particular style does not create a presumption that it is used everywhere else.

 

[theFijian]

I like that logic. Let me apply it. God said that John the Baptist literally ate locuts. Therefore, everything in the Bible is meant literally.

Same logic. Better result.

The result is, you get to deal with and craft a basis for exceptions to the rule on the basis of the text itself, not us literalists. I sit back and crack a cold one.

It was a simple question. One which you don't seem prepared to answer either.

 

[busterdog]

Still waiting for a valid exegesis of v24 Archie. The above is simply a bald assertion with no substance, please explain why God commanded the earth to bring forth. If God created what did the earth have to do with anything?

Well, God also said be fruitful and multiply in Genesis. Having helped conceive five beautiful children, I appreciate God's help in keeping my kids, but I can attest to the fact that they neither evolved nor sprang to life ex nihilo.

 

[busterdog]

It was a simple question. One which you don't seem prepared to answer either.

Can't I just as easily say that you are avoiding the question, since the use of some literal narrative creates a presumption that it is all narrative? That seems to be the reflexive of the argument you are making.

 

[archaeologist]

Can't I just as easily say that you are avoiding the question,

that is true as i have provided much information which disproves his taking one phrase and over-turning all of scripture.

please explain why God commanded the earth to bring forth. If God created what did the earth have to do with anything?

asked and answered, but again, God commanded all things into existence (except man) why would the animals be any different?

That is because you think calling people 'Christians' in inverted commas, saying they don't believe God's word, or the don't follow God, or that they are 'looking for an excuse to ignore God's word and follow their own desires' is not abuse. Until you realise how abusive you really are, you will not get very cordial responses from people

now that you have brought this up, over the years i have observed that americans have a tendancy to distort meanings of certain words to fit their belief.

i have seen it done not only in america itself but here in korea by all those who come here to teach the english language.

i have not done one iota of abuse, but your acceptance of the distorted meaning has allowed you to charge me with something i have not done and to use it to excuse your unchristian responses.

you say you are a christian then you should be responding like God said to do, 'a soft answer turneth away wrath' or 'do not render evil for evil...'

instead you are more abusive and insulting which isn't of God. so my use of of the word 'christian' in this form is correct. there are many dubious answers and belief a placed upon this board in which i cannot accept as coming from a true believer in Christ thus i will not lend credibility to them by saying all such things are christian , when they are not.

 

[theFijian]

Can't I just as easily say that you are avoiding the question, since the use of some literal narrative creates a presumption that it is all narrative? That seems to be the reflexive of the argument you are making.

What question were you supposedly asking me? Obviously we've been over this all before in this forum, but since Archie is new around here i'd like to hear what he has to say on the subject.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Well, Archie, you have told us this morning that you are a teacher and are in Korea.

Are you teaching in English or Korean?

And what is it that you teach? Is it archaeology?

 

[Assyrian]

Why do you reply to different people in the the same post without any reference to who you are quoting or who you are talking to?

now that you have brought this up, over the years i have observed that americans have a tendancy to distort meanings of certain words to fit their belief.

i have seen it done not only in america itself but here in korea by all those who come here to teach the english language.

i have not done one iota of abuse, but your acceptance of the distorted meaning has allowed you to charge me with something i have not done and to use it to excuse your unchristian responses.

you say you are a christian then you should be responding like God said to do, 'a soft answer turneth away wrath' or 'do not render evil for evil...'

instead you are more abusive and insulting which isn't of God. so my use of of the word 'christian' in this form is correct. there are many dubious answers and belief a placed upon this board in which i cannot accept as coming from a true believer in Christ thus i will not lend credibility to them by saying all such things are christian , when they are not.

So my point was correct. You really think all your accusation and abuse is justified.

And do you think your posts are 'a soft answer turneth away wrath' and 'do not render evil for evil...' or are you still preaching at us things you do not do your self? It is ironic that you would take the verse 'a soft answer turneth away wrath' and use it as a bludgeon to attack people and say that are not Christians.

 

[archaeologist]

since you are one of the chief mis-representers here i will ignore your post.

that isn't abuse but a statement of fact.

 

[theFijian]

since you are one of the chief mis-representers here i will ignore your post.

that isn't abuse but a statement of fact.

You misrepresented me in another thread and when called out on it you simply repeated the misrepresentation, you refused to apologise and ignored the call for you to apologise when you were shown to be in the wrong. The only reason you are not ignored is because the utter nonsense you write should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.