Taking questions on the Creation.

[Tiberius]

It's not expressed, it's implied.

God gave it to Adam, and later we see Satan offering it to Jesus.

Putting one and one together, we can infer that Adam was tricked out of it in the Garden of Eden.

Or maybe it was stolen, or Satan had (a separate) dominion all the time, or maybe he was lying, or maybe the whole darned thing never happened at all...

And if you are infering it from the Bible, doesn't that mean little more than making it up?

I don't see why not at this point.

Getting people to stick to Genesis 1 is like trying to herd cats down the Santa Fe Trail.

I'll remember that...

No --- that's the nature of a triune Godhead.

They are separate, yet equal; sovereign, yet accountable to One Another.

If you claim that the elements of the godhead are separate and yet the same thing, then your Godhead is internally inconsistent.

 

[AV1611VET]

All completely irrelevant to my question. It does not matter whether fallen angels were around when God gave Adam dominion. Of whether they existed before the fall. You think Satan still had dominion over the pigs when Jesus went to the region of Gadarenes. And as you point out Jesus' defeat of Satan still lay in the future. So why would fallen angels ask Jesus for permission to enter the pigs when you think it was Satan who had dominion over them?

Let's use a made-up scenario:

Suppose you're head over IS Department, and you have 10 men working under you.

Suddenly your boss, whom you hate, shows up and orders those 10 men to 'hit the road.'

You tell your 10 men to ask your boss, whom you hate, if it's okay to go down to the cafeteria.

They ask your boss, whom you hate, and he says, "Go ahead."

Now you tell your 10 men to go burn down the cafeteria!

Neat trick, eh?

 

[CoderHead]

The version makes all the difference.

That sounds like a dubious claim in support of liberal interpretations fitting your personal views.

No, It is not --- It is the only version out.

But it isn't, and you have to somehow reconcile that. The King James version is simply a hack job authorized by the King...because it alters or leaves out the things that would have offended the King personally. At least, that's how I understand it.

God does it.

So, is there some kind of supernatural stamp of approval? How do you know that God did it? Who gets to say that God blessed version A but not version B?

IMO (and I realize this is just my opinion), having different versions of the Bible opens the whole thing up for inherent flaws. Even if every single Christian in the world were using the King James version they wouldn't all agree on what it says. And this is partly why I cannot understand a literal interpretation of Genesis.

See how I got it back on track to Genesis there?

 

[CoderHead]

Now you tell your 10 men to go burn down the cafeteria!

Neat trick, eh?

Huh??

 

[AV1611VET]

You know one of the complaints AVers make about modern translation is the way they leave out dubious verses you have in the AV, including:
Mark 11:26

(AV) Mark 11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,
But Tyndale leaves that out too.
(Tyndale) Mark 11:25 And when ye stod and praye forgeve yf ye have eny thinge agaynste eny man yt youre father also which is in heve maye forgeve you youre trespases.
27 And they came agayne to Hierusalem. And as he walked in the teple ther came to him ye hye prestes and the Scribes and the elders


Luke 17:36
(AV) Luke 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together
But the Gothic bible leaves that one out.
(GotNT) Luke 17:35 twos wairþand malandeins samana, aina usnimada jah anþara bileiþada.
37 jah andhafjandans qeþun du imma: hvar, frauja? iþ is qaþ im: þarei leik, jaindre galisand sik arans.

John 7:53-8:11 being moved to footnotes or marked as not being in the best manuscripts.
The Gothic bible leaves it out completely
(GotNT) John 7:52 andhofun jah qeþun du imma: ibai jah þu us Galeilaia is? ussokei jah saihv þatei praufetus us Galeilaia ni urreisiþ.
8:12 Aftra du im Iesus rodida qaþuh: ik im liuhaþ manasedais; saei laisteiþ mik ni gaggiþ in riqiza, ak habaiþ liuhaþ libainais.

Publisher's choice.

Some do have them in there --- but in brackets.

In any event --- in there or not --- I'm KJV --- not William Tyndale, not Gothic, not Wycliffe --- KJV.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you claim that the elements of the godhead are separate and yet the same thing, then your Godhead is internally inconsistent.

Either that, or He is not subject to the Law of Non-contradiction.

If I was born and raised on Guam, and thought Guam was the whole world; then when a 'paleface' showed up, I might think he's 'internally inconsistent'.

The error, of course, would be on my end; specifically with the word 'internally'.

 

[Assyrian]

Publisher's choice.

Some do have them in there --- but in brackets.

In any event --- in there or not --- I'm KJV --- not William Tyndale, not Gothic, not Wycliffe --- KJV.

The Gothic bible has different publishers who play around with brackets? I wasn't asking you if you were AV or Goth, I was asking why other 'authorised versions' leave out verses that are in the King James.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Gothic bible has different publishers who play around with brackets? I wasn't asking you if you were AV or Goth, I was asking why other 'authorised versions' leave out verses that are in the King James.

If they did --- which I doubt --- it was publisher's choice.

God certainly would not have left them out.

 

[Assyrian]

Let's use a made-up scenario:
Suppose you're head over IS Department, and you have 10 men working under you.
Suddenly your boss, whom you hate, shows up and orders those 10 men to 'hit the road.'
You tell your 10 men to ask your boss, whom you hate, if it's okay to go down to the cafeteria.
They ask your boss, whom you hate, and he says, "Go ahead."
Now you tell your 10 men to go burn down the cafeteria!
Neat trick, eh?

Nice work trying to portray me as Satan.
Your analogy might work a bit better if the swine were inside the man rather than down the road too. They were being thrown out of the man, pigs in Satan's dominion were just down the road. Why ask Jesus rather than their department head who ran the pigs too?

Any what was the point of the temptation? Matt 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Why would a head of an IS department offer to give the Managing Director his own IS department?

Lets go back and look at the basic mistake you are making here.

God gave it to Adam, and later we see Satan offering it to Jesus.

You are misunderstanding the temptation. Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Satan was offering Jesus people, the people Jesus came to redeem, not dominion over animals. What was it you said to BananaSlug when he pointed out Noah had dominion over animals because they feared and dreaded him, (as well as the right to eat them...)?

Once again --- the word "dominion" is missing --- probably on purpose --- and no matter how much you think that's a moot point ---
I don't.
(Welcome to the King-James-Only mindset.)

Well the accounts of the temptation is missing the word "dominion" too.

 

[jpcedotal]

Great thread man....It is tough to show that it takes more faith to be a naturalist than it does to be a Christian. To believe in "natural coincidences" with no scientific backing, then to disregard good science that points toward the Creator shows that maybe it isn't only Christians who are close minded.

The Big Bang Theory
The Make-up of an Individual Cell
DNA
The Anthropic Principle

All these point more toward Creationism than Naturalism....

Naturalism is a philosophy at best, but a religion is closer to the truth...so why is it allowed to be taught in schools?

 

[Thistlethorn]

Great thread man....It is tough to show that it takes more faith to be a naturalist than it does to be a Christian. To believe in "natural coincidences" with no scientific backing, then to disregard good science that points toward the Creator shows that maybe it isn't only Christians who are close minded.

The Big Bang Theory
The Make-up of an Individual Cell
DNA
The Anthropic Principle

All these point more toward Creationism than Naturalism....

Naturalism is a philosophy at best, but a religion is closer to the truth...so why is it allowed to be taught in schools?

Troll post?

 

[jpcedotal]

Troll post?

I don't think so. I am just agreeing with the OP and Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Great thread man....It is tough to show that it takes more faith to be a naturalist than it does to be a Christian.

Thanks, bro ---

I've shown these guys over the years that not only are they creationists too (and don't know it), but the Bible also exposes atheism as nature worship (and they don't know that, either).

 

[Thistlethorn]

I don't think so. I am just agreeing with the OP and Creationism.

Well, your post has a staggering 100% error quota, so I just assumed that you posted it for kicks and giggles.

 

[CoderHead]

but the Bible also exposes atheism as nature worship (and they don't know that, either).

And what if it is? I'm constantly in awe of nature, but that doesn't mean I think there's anything supernatural about it. We know a lot about the natural world through observation, testing, and replication. There's no need of a "Creator" for any of it.

So...how is it that you surmise I believe in a Creator through my "nature worship?"

 

[jpcedotal]

Thanks, bro ---

I've shown these guys over the years that not only are they creationists too (and don't know it), but the Bible also exposes atheism as nature worship (and they don't know that, either).

There is a reason the Bible never speaks out against atheism. Man has a "natural" (to use the secular word) tendency, an ingrained switch that can not be cut off in each person's being to worship something.

Atheism is does not exist because whatever one puts first is his/her god whether it is the God, a rock, or a belief or even a pair of dirty tennis shoes.

 

[jpcedotal]

And what if it is? I'm constantly in awe of nature, but that doesn't mean I think there's anything supernatural about it. We know a lot about the natural world through observation, testing, and replication. There's no need of a "Creator" for any of it.

So...how is it that you surmise I believe in a Creator through my "nature worship?"

Worshiping does not require something supernatural as the object of worship. For years, science stated that the universe has always been here, then Big Bang theory emerged and the universe is now n a state of slowing down by expansion. Naturalist either have to dismiss the Big Bang theory all together or explain scientifically (which is impossible) what came before and what caused the Big Bang. This is the point where science stops...it can go back no further unless philosophy or religion is introduced.

Anybody remember the PBS series, "The Cosmos"? Was that science or religion?

 

[CoderHead]

For years, science stated that the universe has always been here, then Big Bang theory emerged and the universe is now n a state of slowing down by expansion. Naturalist either have to dismiss the Big Bang theory all together or explain scientifically (which is impossible) what came before and what caused the Big Bang.

I think it's inaccurate to say that the Big Bang (a phrase coined by opposition to belittle and ridicule the theory) states an absolute beginning. All of the matter in the universe right now has always been there in one form or another. Before the universe as we know it was formed by a violent expansion of a singularity, it was most likely configured in another way. If the universe is, indeed, slowing down to the point where it will again contract to another singularity then it will undoubtedly expand again and form another universe of a different configuration. But the matter remains.

If you can believe in a supernatural deity with no beginning or end, why could you not believe in matter with no beginning or end? It's all right here around you. You can touch it, taste it, smell it, and see it. Have you ever seen matter destroyed?

 

[Thistlethorn]

Worshiping does not require something supernatural as the object of worship. For years, science stated that the universe has always been here, then Big Bang theory emerged and the universe is now n a state of slowing down by expansion. Naturalist either have to dismiss the Big Bang theory all together or explain scientifically (which is impossible) what came before and what caused the Big Bang. This is the point where science stops...it can go back no further unless philosophy or religion is introduced.

So, because science can't explain absolutely everything right NOW, it's all wrong and we should instead take the word of people with absolutely no scientific education, a long track-record of lies and deceit not to mention being absolutely wrong, reading from a 3000 year old document written by goat-herding nomads?

Anybody remember the PBS series, "The Cosmos"? Was that science or religion?

It was science. However, I'm intrigued as to why you would see it as a blow to science to equate it with religion which you hold so dear. Wouldn't that be a compliment in your eyes?

 

[AV1611VET]

So...how is it that you surmise I believe in a Creator through my "nature worship?"

I didn't say that --- I made two distinct and completely different statements.

You're blending the two together, and it's leading you to the wrong conclusion.