Creationism is NOT Biblical

[Mallon]

And to Mallon, I am sorry if you took this cited broadside literally. I dont remember the exact context, but it was probably my inference drawn to push some assertion of yours to its extreme. Not exactly and improper technique for argument, but it was not intended to deny your relationship with your Lord, in case there is any question. Hope you forgot it like I did.

It's cool. I'm used to being called a godless liberal Jesus-hater by now.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption and the whole story and meaning of the Pauline system is vain." (Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Though, H.G. Wells)​

TEs are either pawns in this game or they have transformed their secular philosophy into theology. Science is not the enemy or even evolution, atheistic materialism is and every time a TE attacks core Christian conviction the H.G. Wells vision of toppling the Pauline system is aided, whether deliberately or ignorantly. I do not pretend to always be able to discern the difference.

Fear is a good thing, when it is fear of the one who dispenses grace freely and upbraideth not. The comment took me by surprise, but I will be sure to employ more fear in thinking about this matter further, not less.

Oh ok, now you are qualifying what it is you fear, in that sense it's a profoundly good thing.

Well said. And when they mangle scripture, I imagine you dont indulge a subjective standard on whether they are right or wrong.

When it comes to the clear teaching of Scripture on such a vitally important doctrine like justification by faith I see no compromise possible. I'm a little blunt but we are not talking about whether or not the sun literally stopped in the sky in Joshua. The NT clearly affirms in no uncertain terms that Adam was the first human being and his sin brought the curse of sin and death on us all. Arguments to the contrary directly contradict every New Testament writer who addressed the subject including Peter, Paul, Luke and Christ himself. It's too bad if it runs afoul of modernist thinking.

A number of TEs have acknowledged that they dont hold a basic confession of Christian faith as measured by other TEs who do hold that confession. You said it before they did (the Christian TEs) and you were right. Now, you cant possibly be condemning every Christian practice, belief or confessoin of every TE. But, you noted that the faith was seriously lacking by anyone's measure.

My concern is that these relentless attacks are directed at core convictions and essential doctrine. I think it's clear the some TEs are indeed Christians and that some harbor serious errors despite their basic profession of faith. I just have very little patience for Liberal Theology anymore, I think it's shipwrecked the faith of many and continues to be a hindrance to many others who would objectively consider evolution and modern scholarship were it not so overtly hostile to theistic reasoning.

Didn't you do your job, at least in part? Should you not point out error? Its not as if you took a swing at someone. This is board, for God's sake.

I still don't appreciate an attitude that simply attacks a perspective on TOE that offers valid skepticism toward Darwinian thought while affirming the trustworthiness of Scripture. I begin to suspect ulterior motives and deeper philosophical cross currents then readily appear on the surface. When the clear teaching of Christ and the Apostles is attacked it removes all doubt that you are dealing with a modern heresy not unlike Pelagianism and possibly even worse.

I would tone down some comments as counterprodutive. So what? Opinions are like you-know-whats and I have my own. Anyone who really wants Mark to change can tell Mark he is right, or at least grounded biblically, a few times and then see what happens.

Yea well, we all got one and we all use our own. At issue is not a matter of opinion and neither Genesis nor the New Testament are ambiguous about the Flood or our earthly lineage. To abandon the Scriptures to appease secular skeptics is inviting intellectual subterfuge that continues to undermine faith.

Your something of a reader, I'd like to share from a book that was a leading influence on my study of Christian Apologetics:

The author believes that now, more than ever, the facts of life, the facts of history and the facts of science, are not on the side of agnosticism and atheism, but on the side of Christian truth, and that our faith is definitely not contradicted by facts, but is opposed only by the theories of men, whether they be theories of philosophy, psychology and sociology, of the hypothesis of science. Young men today are selling their souls (and minds) too cheaply in forfeiting their holy God given privilege of independent thinking and are too quickly and willingly yielding their minds to, and framing the deeper convictions of life from, the teaching of skeptical professors, and the rationalistic assertions of many of our leaders of thought, such as Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, H.G. Wells, Julian Huxley, etc. If this volume shall but arouse some young men to the reinvestigation of the facts of the Christian faith, a faith which they have been told can no longer be reasonably held, if this volume shall prove and incentive for men to emancipate themselves from the paralyzing consequences of the deceiving and faith destroying spirit of our age, the author will be abundantly satisfied. (Therefore Stand, by Wilbur Smith)​

I believe Liberal Theology to be as destructive as Pelagianism when it attacks the foundational reason given by the Apostle Paul for our sin and the need for justification by faith. I do not mince words on such a vitally important subject and in the absence of good reason I will not extend the right hand of fellowship to those I have discussed these things with in depth only to find them antagonist to the clear teaching of Scripture.

I hope you will consider the book, I'm sure you would like the scholarly and conversational style of it. There is a far larger agenda here then simply rejecting Genesis as literal, it goes right to the heart of New Testament theology. If I seem abrasive it is because I will not compromise on central doctrine. Fight the good fight of faith brother, take on the whole armor of God when you have done everything to stand on the Gospel, then take your stand boldly.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

Except it isn't fear of the Lord, it is fear of becoming liberal, or being contaminated by any of the array of anti evolution slurs out there. Reminds me of the parable of the talents where fear drives one servant to bury his talent in the ground. That is not fear of the Lord.

Its only bizarre if you demand that the Bible accommodate unbiblical beliefs. Obviously it doesnt bother me much.

Incest isn't unbiblical?

Other independently created human beings just doesnt fit. There are inferences and then there are inferences. Much depends on what you are trying to prove.

TEs don't propose independently created human beings, you know, theistic evolution, God used evolution to created us.

You are also seriously overselling your point, since there isnt a real position that other humans were created in other places in TE. What the OP wants is to prove error. Now frankly, I am trying to think of a place which clearly says that all humans carry only the genes of the lines of Adam and Eve (or Nephilim ).

What the OP says is that the creationist interpretation, God created two individuals Adam and Eve and the human race descended from them, that when Cain killed Abel the only human beings were their immediate family, and that this interpretation requires ignoring or changing the plain meaning of the text. My previous caveats aside, the OP has stood up pretty well.

So, the OP does not prove evolution accounts for anything in Genesis, except by the most extreme and dubious extrapolation of we have been discussing. Is there error in either the Bible or creationism because of the possibility that other humans were created independently of Adam and Eve? I could simply say, I dont know, and the OP fails.

It is a bit like the geocentrism debate. The new interpretations of the geocentric passages don't try to show the bible teaches heliocentrism, just that reading the passages as a lesson in astronomy was a mistake.

I don't know any TEs who try to prove the bible teaches evolution, (though I do like the verse where God said 'let the earth produce living creatures' ) instead we think reading Genesis as a six day creation timetable and God making the original pair of humans from mud and a rib, is a misunderstanding of the text.

Unlike the geocentric verses, where there was nothing in scripture to suggest another interpretation, we have plenty of indications that the creation account can be interpreted figuratively, among which are the contradictions literalism has to deal with and the plain meaning changed to fit the literalist view.

In fact, I think I will, with the notion that until I find direct scripture on the subject, I would not stake the YEC creed to this particular issue. But, also with the understanding that clearly, through one man's sin, death entered and that dominion over the earth was given to Adam. Scripture lines up pretty well to indicate that there were no other direct creations other than Adam, so despite feeling comfortable about it, I would decline to stake creationist belief to that periferal issue without something more direct (and I tend to believe it is there somewhere).

Did God give Adam and Eve dominion over the earth, or did he give it to man? How does your bible translate the verse?

But anyway, you seem to be describing Adam as Federal Head there, plenty of TEs accept the Federal Head idea and that Original Sin spread from that that first sin. I don't go in for Original Sin, I think it is Catholic tradition that Luther and Calvin should have left behind with so much of the rest of the baggage. But neither Adam as Federal Head, or Original Sin, depend on Adam being moulded from clay and the human race being descended from him, not unless you accept Augustine's idea that the human race was in Adam's lions and participated in his sin sharing the guilt, or that Original Sin is passed from parent to child because of the concupiscence of the parents.

Certainly, you are not trying to prove that God created the first humans without evolution 6,000 years ago or so. So, the whole attack is not a very strong one.

It is pretty strong if it shows the Literalist view contradicts the literal meaning of scripture.

Why is it more serious? Who says? And in what context is it more serious?

Go to your pastor or the church elders, ask them what you should do if you knew that some one in church a) ate lobster at a church picnic, or b) had sex with his sister.

It is certainly more serious where there are genetic issues, of which there are examples in modern times. There is no need to require that the direct creations of God did not have a better genetic integrity such that genetics are not the issue.

It wasn't an issue in 1Cor 5:1 either. If modern science dealt with genetic problems would that make incest acceptable? Or if a pastor knew they could not have children, should he marry a brother and sister?

The other issue is simply the necessity of having a well ordered family. Theoretically one might meet a sister one had never known and then marry. The wierdness of growing up in a platonic relationship is not an issue there. Remember, Adam theoretically had hundreds of kids and grandkids within the first hundred years, many of whom might have not know one well at all.

Apart from ignoring the text of Genesis, you are just describing a small village community.

Mar 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
Now, God is no more telling me to enter the holy of holies to eat the bread in the Temple (once it is rebuilt) any more than he is telling me it is ok to marry my sister. It is a false assertion that one inference allows all inferences or that one exception such as David's allows all exceptions.

Apart from being culturally insensitive and the danger of being stoned to death by zealous Jewish temple guards, why not? The Jewish temple was only the shadow of the true sanctuary we have access to. Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. However that is simply a question of who is allowed access, not whether it is intrinsically wrong to eat the bread or not. That is the issue with incest.

Admittedly, this is not an easy issue, but where is it leading? To the rejection of creationism? Again, the point is oversold.

It always was a dubious interpetation, why hold onto it when we know from science the earth is billions of years old and mankind has evolved? The incest issue is simply more evidence it is a bad interpretation.

 

[busterdog]

It's cool. I'm used to being called a godless liberal Jesus-hater by now.

Ahhhhh........

More consensus and rapprochement than I ever dreamed was possible!

 

[busterdog]

Except it isn't fear of the Lord, it is fear of becoming liberal, or being contaminated by any of the array of anti evolution slurs out there. Reminds me of the parable of the talents where fear drives one servant to bury his talent in the ground. That is not fear of the Lord.

Well, I think I know better.

But anyway, you seem to be describing Adam as Federal Head there, plenty of TEs accept the Federal Head idea and that Original Sin spread from that that first sin

That is well established. I also think the best available interpretation is sole first ancestor.

It is pretty strong if it shows the Literalist view contradicts the literal meaning of scripture.

Disagree. Inference contradicting a relatively direct statement of scripture (Eve as the mother of all living) is not a preferred M.O. I will be meditating on the source of a more direct solution to the problem. Part of the demise of the OP will probably lie in its lack of direct support, particularly in the suggestion that God is unjust if a more direct scriptural reference is to be taken literally.

I note for your benefit that Leviticus 18 mentions a long list of types of incest, following which is a list of other bad practices, ending in a reference to abominations. The latter term theoretically applies to the entire list preceding, not just the bestiality, etc.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=I&artid=126

It always was a dubious interpetation, why hold onto it when we know from science the earth is billions of years old and mankind has evolved? The incest issue is simply more evidence it is a bad interpretation.

Except if the earth is only 6,000 years old, then you will have to rethink your notion of the first few generations of humanity, and Abraham's marriage as well.

 

[huldah153]

Although I believe I said my previous post was going to be my last in this thread...

What they don't realize is that they have compromised with the spirit of the age and taken in by an atheistic philosophy who will continue to rationalize and academically define the theistic element down to a debased theology that has absolutely nothing to do with God.

You are naive beyond comprehension. Atheistic philosophy? Atheistic materialism? How shall I proceed when faced with this level of ignorance. How about a list of famous Darwinians who were men of faith:

James Burnett
Asa Gray
Henry Drummond
Charles Walcott
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Ronald Fisher
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]Sewall Wright

In my estimation, your second post in this thread wasn't much better than your first. You completely mischaracterized all of my statements and alluded to things that I never implied. Perhaps you had misunderstood my grammar or something.

 

[busterdog]

Although I believe I said my previous post was going to be my last in this thread...



You are naive beyond comprehension. Atheistic philosophy? Atheistic materialism? How shall I proceed when faced with this level of ignorance. How about a list of famous Darwinians who were men of faith:

James Burnett
Asa Gray
Henry Drummond
Charles Walcott
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Ronald Fisher
Sewall Wright

In my estimation, your second post in this thread wasn't much better than your first. You completely mischaracterized all of my statements and alluded to things that I never implied. Perhaps you had misunderstood my grammar or something.

Unfortunately we end up finding encouragement in the complete rejection of a reasonable position. Mark's logic is good logic, which you happen to disagree with. So, when you use words like "naive beyond comprehension", it helps us to understand that the OP was not based on a thorough analysis of YEC thinking.

As I said, trying recognizing some of Mark's good points and then maybe you will have some dialogue then.

And yes, we all understand that there are some saved evolutionists. For the 100th time, yes, we get it. And no, that does not refute Mark's logic.

 

[huldah153]

Unfortunately we end up finding encouragement in the complete rejection of a reasonable position. Mark's logic is good logic, which you happen to disagree with. So, when you use words like "naive beyond comprehension", it helps us to understand that the OP was not based on a thorough analysis of YEC thinking.

As I said, trying recognizing some of Mark's good points and then maybe you will have some dialogue then.

And yes, we all understand that there are some saved evolutionists. For the 100th time, yes, we get it. And no, that does not refute Mark's logic.

I used the word the "naive" in relation to the tangent he created, which had absolutely nothing to do with the OP. He claimed that Evolution is an atheistic philosophy, without even naming a single atheist. It is a matter of fact that Darwinian evolution is synonymous with Christian scientists.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, I think I know better.

I'll leave it with you then.

That is well established. I also think the best available interpretation is sole first ancestor.

Based on one obscure verse about how Eve got her name, in a creation account full of metaphor and allegory (did Jesus step on a talking snake?), where the order of creation contradicts the first creation account? It is not as if names given in scripture are easy to follow, and in fact you cannot take the explanation literally, she could not have been the literal mother of every creature. On the other hand 'Mother' features regularly in honorific and figurative titles.

Judges 5:7 The villagers ceased in Israel; they ceased to be until I arose; I, Deborah, arose as a mother in Israel.
2Sa 20:19 I am one of those who are peaceable and faithful in Israel. You seek to destroy a city that is a mother in Israel. Why will you swallow up the heritage of the LORD?"
Job 1:21 And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return.
Job 17:14 if I say to the pit, 'You are my father,' and to the worm, 'My mother,' or 'My sister,'
Isaiah 50:1 Thus says the LORD: "Where is your mother's certificate of divorce, with which I sent her away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away.
Jer 50:12 your mother shall be utterly shamed, and she who bore you shall be disgraced. Behold, she shall be the last of the nations, a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert.
Ezek 16:3,44&45 and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.
Ezek 19:2 and say: What was your mother? A lioness! Among lions she crouched; in the midst of young lions she reared her cubs.
Ezek 19:10 Your mother was like a vine in a vineyard planted by the water, fruitful and full of branches by reason of abundant water.
Ezek 23:2 "Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother.
Hos 2:2 "Plead with your mother, plead-- for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband-- that she put away her whoring from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts;
Hos 2:5 For their mother has played the harlot; she who conceived them has acted shamefully. For she said, 'I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.'
Hos 4:5 You shall stumble by day; the prophet also shall stumble with you by night; and I will destroy your mother.
Rom 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Rev 17:5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations."

Disagree. Inference contradicting a relatively direct statement of scripture (Eve as the mother of all living) is not a preferred M.O. I will be meditating on the source of a more direct solution to the problem. Part of the demise of the OP will probably lie in its lack of direct support, particularly in the suggestion that God is unjust if a more direct scriptural reference is to be taken literally.

Hardly inference, the whole narrative become garbled when you try to read it from the Creationist pov. As for God being unjust, I am not sure who you think is saying that. But there were much more clear direct statements for the geocentric interpretation than there is for the two parents of the human race view, nor were the multiplicity of geocentric verses challenged by any other passages, nor was there any evidence for alternative interpretations as we have with the frequent allagorical reading of Adam and Eve in the NT.

However I do think the church would be held accountable if it continued to cling to literal geocentrism and not look for alternative interpreations once the scientific evidence showed the earth did orbit the sun.

I note for your benefit that Leviticus 18 mentions a long list of types of incest, following which is a list of other bad practices, ending in a reference to abominations. The latter term theoretically applies to the entire list preceding, not just the bestiality, etc. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=I&artid=126

The problem is the term abomination also applies to eating lobster, but thanks
I do notice though, incest with your sister is covered Lev 18:9 ...whether brought up in the family or in another home.

Except if the earth is only 6,000 years old, then you will have to rethink your notion of the first few generations of humanity, and Abraham's marriage as well.

No I don't think so. A 6000 year old earth would certainly make me rethink the earth being 4.5 billion years old, and God couldn't have used evolution in that timespan. But don't forget you had young earth literalists like Basil who though God endowed the earth with the ability to produce living creatures naturally (let the earth produce living creatures) Augustine who believed the earth was young also thought the days in Genesis were meant figuratively. Among first century Jews like Philo and Josephus, we have the story of Adam and Eve being interpreted allegorically, so while God would have created mankind directly, there is no reason to assume it was limited to a single couple. Gen 4&5 and the problem of incest still go against that assumption. Abraham's marriage would also be unaffected by a 6000 year old earth, it was Jewish commentators like the Targum of Jonathan who thought Sarah was his half cousin, Haran's daughter.

This whole debate has made me reexamine my approach to scripture, it has lead me to discover the bible's love of metaphor, parable and allegory and given me a deeper appreciation and understanding of the words of Jesus, and of that first century Rabbi, Paul. I could never go back to literalism, it is so ninteenth century.

But the bible never says the earth is 6000 year old and a young earth has been thoroughly debunked by science. The church needs to get its head out of the sand and follow the example of their forefathers who dealt with the issue when science showed the old geocentric interpretations were wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

It's attributed to Moses by Christ himself, you can get someone else to chase that wild goose.

You are putting more words in Jesus' mouth. When did he ever attribute Genesis to Moses much less say Moses wrote it? But if you don't want to support you claims, we can let them fly away.

Moses did not say that Adam was figurative, his said that Adam was a figure of Christ. I have told you this repeatedly and you still spew the same fallacious and clearly bogus statement. It is not so much that you are in error that bothers me but the condescending attitude that you pontificate it with.

Pot... kettle... black... And off the point.

You said: It's not fear to take the clear meaning of the texts in Genesis and Romans literally as the authers did.

In other word not only do you think Moses wrote Genesis and meant it literally, you believe Paul wrote Romans and meant it literally. So when I pointed out Romans 5:14 where Paul tells us he is treating Adam as a figure of Christ, it isn't to say looking at figurative writing in Genesis, but in Romans.

Deal with the arguments I make rather than accusing me of spewing ones you make up yourself.

BD has nothing to fear from fallacious ad hominem rhetoric, that's just plain silly.

I have never seen any other reasons for Creationist preachers to keep coming up with fallacious ad hominem rhetoric other than to keep the flock in line through fear. But rhetoric like that does tend to fester and hateful words breed hate in people's souls. I think it is cultic. Keep people from examining scripture through fear.

It is you treatment of the Scriptures that puts you outside traditional Christian theism, not my personal opinion of you. I'm debating justification by faith alone with a Catholic scholar (I mean he studied theology in a Catholic college) and found that I have fewer differences with him then any TE I have encounted.

That says a lot doesn't it. Original Sin is a Catholic doctrine. The more you base your theology on it the more Catholic your theology gets, go back to scripture Mark.

What TEs actually believe about the Bible is a mystery to me since it is absent in their arguments. Primarily because all they focus on is what they don't believe.

To an extent that is the nature of debate, but plenty of TEs have told you what they believe, but you ignore it because you want to think they are evil heretics.

Your view of the Bible entered the Church at the advent of 19th century atheistic naturalism and bears more of a simularity to that philosophy then anything I can find of it in Scripture.

Now there are two mutually contradictory statements. What we believe about the bible is a mystery to you because we never talk about it, then you proceed to tell us all about our view of scripture.

By the way, in preparing for the debate I found this canon from the Council of Trent and fifth session:

If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
​

If you wish to quote an anathema against me, I'll just say the Lord bless you Mark.

Let's get something straight and I assure you this is nothing personal, when you directly contradict or twist the Scriputures I see you as being outside the faith:

And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Pe 3:16)
​

Then what you should do is show how my interpretations contradict or twist scripture instead of using it as an excuse to say I am not a believer. Of course if you had quoted the next verse you would see what Peter was talking about, and how twisting Paul's word could lead to their destruction.

2Pet 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. He was talking about lawless people using Paul's teaching on grace as an excuse for immorality. In using a disagreement over what Paul taught as an excuse to call fellow Christians non believers, you are twisting this passage yourself.

And what makes you think you understand Paul? The fact you think his writing is clear and literal probably means you don't understand what Paul is saying. Peter tells us Paul can be difficult to understand.

Peter discusses the creation of the world from the speaking of words, the global flood

Again I don't know where you get the idea of a global flood in Peter's epistle.

and Paul discusses Adams transgression and indicates in no uncertain terms that he was the first man as all New Testament writters do.

Some scriptural evidence for your claims would be nice. Otherwise we just have to guess which passages you think supports your views. Do you mean the one where Paul says 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Adam was the first man ever and Jesus was the second man? No that can't be the verse you mean, you believe Cain or one of his many older brothers was the second man. You don't think Paul is writing literal history here do you?

When you catagorcially reject this based on secular science and worldly wisdom just stop and think, What do you expect my reaction to be.

I reject it because it is bad exegesis. I expect my brothers in the Lord to explain where they think I am going wrong if I have misunderstood. Though I do expect them to be able to back up their case from scripture.

BD is anything but a flame artist, his posts are mild and generally well thought out. You just spoke of him as a coward and this politically correct clutch phrase 'argument from incredulity' is nothing more then a way of calling someone a fool. Do you seriously expect me to extend the right hand of fellowship to someone who clearly twists the Scriptures and attacks evangelicals and fundamentalists with inflammatory and highly emotive satire?

What an amazing distortion of my posts. The idea I would think busterdog a coward is farcical.

You have expressed no interest in core Christian convictions and all TE does, as far as I can tell, is attack creationism. I see no difference between TE and the Liberal Theology of secular humanism or the atheistic philosophy of Tillich or Hegal.

So your opinions are based on what we haven't talked about?

How could it have anything to do with the doctrine of Original Sin when there are plenty of TEs who accept Original Sin and see no contradiction between it and TE. I dropped the doctrine of Original Sin long before I became a TE, when I left the Catholic Church, it was just one more tradition did not see it anywhere in scripture. And that is what Original Sin is, a old Catholic tradition dreamed up in the fifth century based on a bad translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin.

I read the New Testament in the original, not Latin and not just the English translation. This passage creates no exegetical challenges whatsoever and it's the most basic of Hermaneutics yeild a literal interprutation of Genesis in no uncertain terms.

Nice topic switch. My reference to Latin was nothing to do with Paul interpeting Genesis literally, but where Augustine got the doctrine of Original Sin. And whatever languages you want to read Romans in, Augustine got Original Sin from a bad translation into Latin.

I don't know what you left Rome for but you left the essential reason for justification by faith when you did, it's because in Adam all sinned. That is of course if you take the Apostle Paul at his word and don't twist it around to fit into you philosophical Christian/secular matrix.

You mean the essential reason for justification by faith had to wait until the fifth century for Augustine to get his hands on a bad translation into Latin? I prefer to go on what Paul tells us, whether you read it in Greek or English, that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The problem is that since Augustine came up with Original Sin, people have worked out their theologies, and read justification through the filter of Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin. And now you can't tell them apart. You need to go back to scripture and understand what it says about justification by faith, we are sinners and are justified freely by Christ's death, through faith.

I left the Catholic church as well but not because I rejected the tradtional doctrine of the Church (not just Rome but Christianity at large). I left because I believe in Scripture alone as the canon of the Christian life and duty, Christ alone being the righteousness of God to us and grace alone, lest any man should base. I have never discarded the Scriptures and while many of my beliefs run contrary to Rome essential Christian doctrine remains consistant in their basic views.

For me is was all the stuff about praying to Mary and her being co-mediator, salvation by religious works rather than being saved by faith, and the fact that I could not reconcile these traditions with what I read in scripture. It was not so much that scripture contradicted them, which it did, but that they simply weren't there.

This sound like we are having the classic reformation dispute, how far do you go? Do you just throw out things you think are contrary to scripture and keep the rest, or do you get rid of anything that isn't in scripture. Now I am not quite that radical, we have an awful lot to learn form godly men throughout the history of the church. But at the same time, when it comes to the essentials, I want to get my understanding of the gospel from scripture not Augustine.

Paul clearly blamed Adam and the need for justification according the the Apostle to the Gentiles, was Adam.

Paul said we are to blame. That is what it really says in Rom 5:12 death spread to all men, because all sinned.

We should really talk theology sometime, I would have a blast with you in the formal debate forum.

These posts get long enough, this one is already a two parter, and my wife doesn't see enough of me as it is. We are discussing things here aren't we?

You have talked about this before and you defend the same two errors zealously.

Any particular errors?


to be continued...

 

[Assyrian]

Part II

The issue raised by Galileo was Aristotlean mechanics, there was a much larger process involved. Galileo wanted to toss Aristotle's physics out the window while Medieval scholars wanted to revise and expand it. When Galileo started winning the argument at Piza they went to theologians who painted him as a Protestant. We have discussed these things as well and you are still getting it twisted. The only used a couple of Scriptures and when they did Galileo said, 'the Bible tells us how we get to heaven, not how the heavens work'.

There was a scientific debate about Aristotlean mechanics, but that wasn't the problem. Science follows the evidence. The bigger problem for both Catholics and Protestants is that through church history in the writings of church fathers, scripture scholars and theologians, passages throughout scripture had been read and interpreted literally as describing the sun moving around the earth. There wasn't a single commentator who read these passages heliocentrically or said the bible wasn't teaching geocentrism.

There is not now, nor has there ever been a Biblical doctrine regarding Astronomy and the suggestion that there was one is laughable.

Of course the bible does not teach geocentrism. But we only learned geocentrism was not biblical after Copernicus, after the church found new ways to read the passages that had been read literally as describing a geocentric cosmos for a millenium and a half.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html

But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false...

I say that, as you know, 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 Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (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. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

This was as big an issue back then as evolution is today, and I find it amazing Creationist simply cannot grasp the fact.

The only difference I can see for us today is that the scientific evidence we have for an ancient earth and evolution is much stronger than the evidence for heliocentrism was in the seventeenth century, and while scholars in seventeenth century faced a tradition of geocentric interpretation which was completely unchallenged, we have a rich heritage of different ways to interpret the Genesis days from church fathers and bible scholars throughout history.

No there isn't, I'm just not going to chase this wild goose any further.

Just saying it ain't so doesn't change the history.

Except the bible never tells us the reason incest is forbidden is inbreeding. If that is the only reason, and incest isn't wickedness as the bible says, then it should be all right for brother and sister to marry now, as long as they don't have any children. Would you be ok with that?

Again, I'm not going to argue this in circles. Adam and Eve would have had pristine genomes. The reason that inbreeding is bad is because it causes bottlenecks and mutations accumulate.

Except the bible doesn't say that is the reason incest is wrong, and it condemns incest that doesn't lead to inbreeding 1Cor 5:1.

I don't hate Buddists, I think they are great. I don't hate Wiccans, the few I have know were friendly and fun to talk to about paganism. I don't hate Mormons, I have set down and talked to them for hours and enjoyed the discussion a lot. I just don't consider them Christians.

Make up any excuses you want, the bitterness in your heart are clear from so many of your posts Matt 12:34 For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. But I would hope you speak more graciously to Wiccans and Buddhists than you do to fellow believers.

Now you are using this moralistic tone and not considering what I offered as a substantive response to the problem of who Cains wife was. That's what you guys do and while I find it interesting and fairly amusing I do not see anything remotely theistic or Biblical in it. There are answers to these questions but when the question just keeps getting asked no matter what the response, it's nothing but a rhetorical device.

That is most of the lines of argumentation imployed by TEs on here.

Dismissing my post a mockery of scripture is hardly a substantive response.

 

[mark kennedy]

Part II
There was a scientific debate about Aristotlean mechanics, but that wasn't the problem. Science follows the evidence. The bigger problem for both Catholics and Protestants is that through church history in the writings of church fathers, scripture scholars and theologians, passages throughout scripture had been read and interpreted literally as describing the sun moving around the earth. There wasn't a single commentator who read these passages heliocentrically or said the bible wasn't teaching geocentrism.

Funny, I was under the impression that Rome used isolated texts, taken out of context to defend geocentrism. They were defending Aristotelian mechanics pure and simple. I have read a great deal about this and find your argument rhetorical rather then substantive.

Of course the bible does not teach geocentrism. But we only learned geocentrism was not biblical after Copernicus, after the church found new ways to read the passages that had been read literally as describing a geocentric cosmos for a millenium and a half.

The Bible teaches nothing of the sort.

This was as big an issue back then as evolution is today, and I find it amazing Creationist simply cannot grasp the fact.

It's not the facts that we cannot grasp, it's the a priori assumption that we will not make, that is at issue. It is followed closely by another sweeping generality that anyone who argues against common decent and universal common ancestry are simply ignorant. They can grasp the facts and do . The Darwinian logic simply argues from false assumptions which is why Creationists and ID proponents argue against Darwinism rather the Mendelian genetics, it's the philosophical naturalistic assumptions that are the culprit.

Just saying it ain't so doesn't change the history.

I know my history. I was faced with similar arguments about the Inquistion, Crusades and Salem Witch hunts. I carefully researched these historical tends and found the motives were not religious, they were secular.

Except the bible doesn't say that is the reason incest is wrong, and it condemns incest that doesn't lead to inbreeding 1Cor 5:1.

Look, you have ignored my answer to the question so I won't bother with your rationalization of the passages in question.

Make up any excuses you want, the bitterness in your heart are clear from so many of your posts Matt 12:34 For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. But I would hope you speak more graciously to Wiccans and Buddhists than you do to fellow believers.

I am disposed toward pagans and certain TEs with the same general feelings of curiosity. Just because I don't accept someone as Christian does not mean they make me bitter, I just conclude that they lack real conviction. Darwinism is poison and I would have the same contentious attitude toward Wiccans and Buddhists who presumed to tell me that they represented Christian views when clearly they don't.

I am not bitter, I'm bored with the same rhetorical devices that bring so much satisfaction to people who are furthering an agenda of secular atheistic materialists to undermine Christian conviction.

"Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption and the whole story and meaning of the Pauline system is vain." (Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Though, H.G. Wells)​

Intelligent Design cannot be taught in public schools because it is religious but Creationism is not Biblical enough? What kind of logic is that? Sooner or later you will have to get off the fence, you either take your stand on Christian conviction or you side with worldly philosophers. The middle ground has been turned into a no man's land which is exactly the intent of Darwinians. You are in the same boat and you don't realize it, they seek to undo Christian theism altogether and your next.

I bear you no malice but I won't compromise on vital Christian doctrine. We can discuss genetics and paleontology all day long and it won't effect my opinion of you as a Christian one way or the other. Step off into erroneous doctrines and wrong representations of the clear testimony of Scripture and you are simply dealing with a whole other side of me. If you want to make a case that I am mistaken and want to prove me wrong perhaps you can help out your cohort who has invited a formal debate on this topic in the Formal Debate forum, I sincerely hope you do.

Dismissing my post a mockery of scripture is hardly a substantive response.

Read Proverbs chapter one and tell me, who is the fool in the passage?

 

[Hawkins]

Perhaps I have to repost here to add my 2 cents

-----
That boils down to whether ToE is scientific or not. It has almost nothing to do with whether it is believed by which group of people. It is purely about whether ToE stands by itself as a science or not.

And unfortunately it is not. If anyone (no mather who he is and disregarding to his background), dares to use ToE for once and to make a single prediction on the next animal shall evolve, and under what environment shall this evolution occur, if he dares to make such a prediction, ToE as a whole will inevitably be falsyfied right away, and in a flash of a second.

The trick is, a twisted concept of science is applied. Evolutionists have to apply a twisted concept about what science is in order to count ToE in as a science. Science is never about the collection of consistent data, science is all about the establishment of common rules subject to the repeative testing using risky data (instead of consistent data). Science is all about the setting up of common rules which are testable with scientific methods, which are falsyfiable by scientific methods, which are with predictability capacity.

ToE bears none of these characteristics of what a true science should have. ToE contains nothing being testable, falsyfiable and predictable.


In the field of science, ToE is however a political correct. Not because it contains more truth, it is because the lack of alternatives. So in order to fit and justify ToE into such a 'polical correct' agenda, people have to twist the original concept of what science is into saying that 'science means the gathering of consistent data, and the more consistent data collected, the more truth it contains'. Unfortunately, it is a falsehood for people to fall for, not just for a political correct agenda, but being extended for a religious agenda.

The point is, what alternatives are given for people who are unwilling to believe in God? The answer is 'none'. The only alternative they have is to believe and swallow ToE, no matter how lame it is scientifically speaking. ToE thus becomes their religion.

 

[Hawkins]

Open to possibilities

-----
I fail to see how evident is that for evolution, for adaptiveness then perhaps. Moreover, nothing scientific can be concluded about evolution.

For example, I created a golden fish and drop it into a pond of fishes, how can you tell if the golden fish is evolved from the pond of fishes or not? You can't. By the same token, every single creature from every single species can either be created or evolved, but can't be proven.

That's when I even assume that evolution does occur.

Another example, can God make everything else evolve from a single cell, but to make humans from particles, He can. Mind you, there's no evidence even suggest otherwise yet.

At last and by the same token, can God make every species in one day, then allowing some of them adapt into the rather moderate and prolonged environment such that they change to adapt (viewed by human as evolution), while He re-create and re-spawn both new and old species when He sees fit? He can. He can at any time of history, no matter what time scale you are using.

Mathematically speaking, can God make 1 species from scratch while leaving other n-1 species evolved from a single cell? He can. Can He make n-1 species from scratch while only 1 out of evolution? He can. Can He make all n species from scratch? He can. The point is, no matter which approach is actually used by Him, humans will still view them as if they are the result of evolution.

So rather than to choose to believe in one in the nth possibility how God bring us to our existence, why not just take what's said in the Scripture literally.

 

[Hawkins]

God has all the right to do whatever He sees fit, humans don't have the right to say that evolution must be used. So don't speak for Him, and you are recommended to take the Scripture literally.

-----
Last time I checked that Microsoft never used its automatic Windows Update feature to upgrade its product XP to Vista. Vista is thus created instead of automatically evolved from XP.

Micorsoft said that this is the best way for its product. Though some people insist on that Vista is completely a product evolved from XP throuth Windows Update via the Internet. They keep arguing that the manual version upgrade is deen unnecessary. Thus Windows Update should be the only possible way how Vista was done. Or else, Microsoft must be a deceptive buster using unnecessary means to produce Vista.

The same occurred for DOS to Windows 3.0 in the early stage of the evolution, though how DOS was originated is unknown, while no transisional products are found yet. It is proven as a fact that some virus had infected DOS such that new codes were introduced into the product. By giving some time, DOS thus evolved to Windows 3.0 and the successive versions.

/* Sarcasm off

 

[Hawkins]

Your carbon-dating is a fantasy, I have just flushed it into my toilet.

-----
The basic rule is, what's impossible for men is possible for God.

I am going show you one of the many possibilities which is going to resolve the human impossibility.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God started to create multiple spaces called 'heavens'. It's designed that humans, in there physical bodies, can hardly perceive the presence of other spaces, such as up to the third heaven, or down to Hades. While when human souls depart from their bodies, they will know right away what spaces/heavens could mean.

At the same time, God started to create Earth, but in His own laboratory, which is perhaps another space/dimension.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Originally, it's a dark and deep space, while waters are ready there to be poured.

Now perhaps a big planet (can be from anywhere, such as another universe and so forth) is shifted into the great laboratory. All forces are thus simulated to keep the planet in position, 'corner stone, corner stone, please hold the planet in position'. And it's done. But still, no source of lighting yet.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Now the source of lighting is made. And God said that it's good. And with the 'corner stone' stands ready, the Earth started to rotate. Wow, the first day of Planet Earth, man.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Now the atmosphere surrounding the Earth is made. Wow, we have a blue sky now. And the Earth keeps rotating, just as expected and planned.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Now the ocean is made. Wow, we have seas and lands.

Should Dinasours be made here? Now a kind of Dinasours called species A is put to Earth. And it brings forward their offsprings.

Should another kind of Dinasours be put the same way? Now species B is created and put to earth. But here comes the question, can humans later on distinguish whether species B is a creation or is evolved from species A.

No, humans can never distinguish but they will firmly believe that species B is evolved from species A, as they believe that the bones say so.
Hello humans.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Now the plants and trees are made. Wow, what a beautiful green world. Everything seems to be ready here in the laboratory, how about the status of the human universe now?

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Now in order to shift the Earth from the laboratory to the 'human universe', we simply need another set of source of lighting, the corner stone and other forces to keep the Earth in the correct position.

Now planet earth is shifted to its current position. Not too close to the Sun, and not too far away from it. Together with other stars in the Solar system, it keeps the Earth to its expected and planned position.



This is to say that human minds are so limited. Yet they think they know everything, after eating too much from the Tree of Knowledge, just as prophesied in the story of Adam and Eve.


And don't get me wrong here, I am not trying to add anything to the Scripture, I am just trying to open you to possibilities.

 

[Hawkins]

Finally, something about the current Spiritual Warfare

-----
As a summary, evolution never subject itself to the scientific check of predictability and falsifyability. Actually it is an empty 'theory' containing nothing testable and falsifyability for the scientific check. It contains no rules nor laws. It is thus lawless and from the lawless one.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.


It is the worship of bones,

Romans 1:21-23
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Romans 1:25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.


It seems to me that everything is foretold, and can be found in the Holy Bible. I can actually go deeper till the topic 'abomination causes desolution', people may find it offensive thou.

 

[Assyrian]

Funny, I was under the impression that Rome used isolated texts, taken out of context to defend geocentrism. They were defending Aristotelian mechanics pure and simple.

The church fathers and commentaries Bellarmine referred to were hardly defending Aristotlean mechanics against the heliocentrism of Copernicus and Galileo. These are writers throughout a millennium and a half of church history simply looking at the bible and explaning what they thought it said.

It is simply amazing to me that Creationists cannot see that Christians in the time of Copernicus and Galileo would have the same problem, would be just as shaken as they are, to have with their traditional literal reading of these passages being shown wrong by science. Read that passage by Bellarmine, heliocentrism seemed to challenge the very credibility of scripture.

I have read a great deal about this and find your argument rhetorical rather then substantive.

Speaking of rhetoric...

Of course the bible does not teach geocentrism. But we only learned geocentrism was not biblical after Copernicus, after the church found new ways to read the passages that had been read literally as describing a geocentric cosmos for a millenium and a half.

The Bible teaches nothing of the sort.

That is just what I said.

This was as big an issue back then as evolution is today, and I find it amazing Creationist simply cannot grasp the fact.

It's not the facts that we cannot grasp, it's the a priori assumption that we will not make, that is at issue. It is followed closely by another sweeping generality that anyone who argues against common decent and universal common ancestry are simply ignorant. They can grasp the facts and do . The Darwinian logic simply argues from false assumptions which is why Creationists and ID proponents argue against Darwinism rather the Mendelian genetics, it's the philosophical naturalistic assumptions that are the culprit.

I take it from switching to your a priori line about evolution, that you cannot deal with my point.

I know my history. I was faced with similar arguments about the Inquistion, Crusades and Salem Witch hunts. I carefully researched these historical tends and found the motives were not religious, they were secular.

So the church Fathers had secular motive for their interpretation of the geocentric passages. And Bellarmine was just lying of course. I suggest when you read your history, you try to understand why people thought the way they did.

Look, you have ignored my answer to the question so I won't bother with your rationalization of the passages in question.

If you thought I missed something you could repeat the point, and dismissing my scripture based answer as 'rationalization' simply means you don't want to deal with it.

I am disposed toward pagans and certain TEs with the same general feelings of curiosity. Just because I don't accept someone as Christian does not mean they make me bitter, I just conclude that they lack real conviction. Darwinism is poison and I would have the same contentious attitude toward Wiccans and Buddhists who presumed to tell me that they represented Christian views when clearly they don't.

So you explanation for your bitter hatred towards fellow believers is bogus. Your don't treat TEs the way you treat Wiccans and Buddhists. We have the temerity to tell you we are Christians and you can't handle that.

I am not bitter, I'm bored

So all your reviling accusations come from boredom? Nah I can't believe that. The venom sounds much too sincere, much too heart felt. You're not a Troll or a Poe.

with the same rhetorical devices that bring so much satisfaction to people who are furthering an agenda of secular atheistic materialists to undermine Christian conviction.

"Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption and the whole story and meaning of the Pauline system is vain." (Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Though, H.G. Wells)​

Yeah lets get out bible study from atheist science fiction writers.

Intelligent Design cannot be taught in public schools because it is religious but Creationism is not Biblical enough?

Hey, don't blame me for American Constitutional Law. I'm Irish. But I am sure American law excludes an awful lot of different religions and religious beliefs from the classroom, not just biblical Christianity. However I hold biblical Christianity to a higher standard.

What kind of logic is that?

You are making up these arguements, you tell me.

Sooner or later you will have to get off the fence, you either take your stand on Christian conviction or you side with worldly philosophers. The middle ground has been turned into a no man's land which is exactly the intent of Darwinians. You are in the same boat and you don't realize it, they seek to undo Christian theism altogether and your next.

As a Christian I stand for truth in whatever form it comes in. God who created the universe also inspired the bible and a proper understanding of one will not contradict the proper understanding of the other.

The problem Creationists have is they cannot conveive the possibility that their literal interpetation of Genesis could ever be mistaken and contradicted by science, in just the same way the literal reading of the geocentric passages was contradicted by Copernicus. Nor apparently they grasp the fact that the bible and Christianity did not fall apart when a mistaken literal interpretation was shown to be wrong. God is bigger than our mistaken interpretations and he can make us stand when our mistaken understandings fall.

I bear you no malice but I won't compromise on vital Christian doctrine. We can discuss genetics and paleontology all day long and it won't effect my opinion of you as a Christian one way or the other. Step off into erroneous doctrines and wrong representations of the clear testimony of Scripture and you are simply dealing with a whole other side of me. If you want to make a case that I am mistaken and want to prove me wrong perhaps you can help out your cohort who has invited a formal debate on this topic in the Formal Debate forum, I sincerely hope you do.

Yeah you really don't like it when TEs claim to be Christians do you, or show where your interpretation of scripture is wrong. The debate should be good though.

Read Proverbs chapter one and tell me, who is the fool in the passage?

Prov 1:5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance-
6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
Someone who doesn't want love learning, who doesn't understand, or want to understand, that the bible is written in proverbs, parables and riddles.

Incidentally the word riddle or ‘dark saying’ (AV) comes up in Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hidden things, things from of old. I wonder what riddles or dark sayings the bible has from ancient times.

 

[marktheblake]

Why make up Hebrew grammar when the normal meaning works very well?

I havent made anything up - I asked you how you can be sure. First you say 'usually' then now you insist waw can only mean one thing.

For someone so indignant that a sentence can only mean one thing you are not very consistent.

Doesn't the fact that you have to make up new meanings of Hebrew grammar to make a passage fit your interpretation, suggest the problem lies with your interpretation?

Its only your opinion not a fact.

It was just a suggestion. I would think fathers would generally want to hand the blessing down to their first born and needed convincing when God told them their second son was to receive the blessing instead.

Firstborn gets the justice, second born gets the grace (all others are second born) This is why Firstborn gets double everything, if one of the family members does something wrong, the first born pays for it.

You are pulling another very long bow to claim the line from Adam to Noah are all first born. Especially when Seth was not a first born. What you say is possible but it doesn't fit the rest of the text, and no matter what you claim as fact, it is not the only possibility.

 

[marktheblake]

Haven't we heard that kind of argument before?

I dont know. But your evasiveness of the question convinces me that you know you are wrong, otherwise you would have answered it.

Gen 19:30

Now Lot went up out of Zoar

irrelevant. It is clearly evident from Gen 2:24 that God intends that mans only partner is be his wife.