Creationists, what do the worlds universities know that creationists don't?

[Inan3]

It is not my opinion that creationism has had it's claims completely rebutted.

Honestly, as much as the different schools of creoism are
at odds with eachother, at the very least the claims of all but one of them are refuted by the others!

Hespera, is that you? Nice to hear from you.

To answer your statement, sometimes I hear from you guys about creationism in different veins. I am not all that sure about creationism as a whole. I can only speak for myself and what the Bible teaches about creation. The actual word creationism is NOT in the Bible so I am not familiar with creationism circles. I don't even care to be. What I care about is what does God's word tell us about creation. Firstly it says that, "in the beginnig GOD created the heavens and the earth." That is enough for me.

It only stands to reason that there might be many differnt claims or views of creationism. We really don't have a creationism organization with laws and bylaws. Nor do we have a leader of creationism. That's okay, though, some of us have the CREATOR as our God to refer to.

I am not insecure in my faith in the Creator just because someone else disagrees with me about creationism. I know what the Bible says and it is very clear (if one studies it) to see where it stands on creation. As I said above, the Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. I really don't need an interpretor to understand this. It is quite simple. I have never seen ANYONE credibly disprove this. Have you or can you?

I do believe your statement lacks any verification or evidence. Not trying to argue with you but could you give us the evidence of your statement "at the very least the claims of all but one of them are refuted by the others." I don't know which claims you are talking about.

 

[Inan3]

You sound like an educated woman --

 

[AV1611VET]

yep seek and ye shall find 37,000 sects worth of difference about what the thing means.

I take it I won't be seeing you getting gas for your car, since there are about 10 different companies to choose from?

I take it I won't be seeing you buy bread, since there are about 10 different brand names to choose from?

Take a dictionary, place it in your lap and just open it to any random page and look at the definitions -- many of which contradict each other.

I think I'll go ahead and take that mindset as a cop-out.

 

[Inan3]

yep seek and ye shall find 37,000 sects worth of difference about what the thing means.

but of course only the true christians get it right. you will know who they are because they will tell you they -thro' luck, inspiration, study, or such divers means as there may be-got it right.

not like the others. the others do it wrong. how could they think a bit of a sprinklin' would baptize when ever so clear its gotta be full immersion?

but all of them got it right. so they say.

Oh, Hespera, you do go on...

Let's see...

Can you understand what the following verse means?

Pro 8:9 These things are clear to any intelligent person. They are right to anyone with knowledge.

 

[Hespera]

i guess there must be an awful lot of unintelligent christians then.

 

[Hespera]

Hespera, is that you? Nice to hear from you.

To answer your statement, sometimes I hear from you guys about creationism in different veins. I am not all that sure about creationism as a whole. I can only speak for myself and what the Bible teaches about creation. The actual word creationism is NOT in the Bible so I am not familiar with creationism circles. I don't even care to be. What I care about is what does God's word tell us about creation. Firstly it says that, "in the beginnig GOD created the heavens and the earth." That is enough for me.

It only stands to reason that there might be many differnt claims or views of creationism. We really don't have a creationism organization with laws and bylaws. Nor do we have a leader of creationism. That's okay, though, some of us have the CREATOR as our God to refer to.

I am not insecure in my faith in the Creator just because someone else disagrees with me about creationism. I know what the Bible says and it is very clear (if one studies it) to see where it stands on creation. As I said above, the Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. I really don't need an interpretor to understand this. It is quite simple. I have never seen ANYONE credibly disprove this. Have you or can you?

I do believe your statement lacks any verification or evidence. Not trying to argue with you but could you give us the evidence of your statement "at the very least the claims of all but one of them are refuted by the others." I don't know which claims you are talking about.

Its simple. if they say different things they cant all be right.

who is right?

Part 1: The Creation/Evolution Continuum in Christian Creationism

Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum (see figure), and most creationist and evolutionist positions may be fit along this continuum (Scott 1999). The successive steps labelled in the figure are described below.

• CREATION
  • Flat Earthers
  • Geocentrists
  • Young Earth Creationists
    • (Omphalos)
  • Old Earth Creationists
    • (Gap Creationism)
    • (Day-Age Creationism)
    • (Progressive Creationism)
    • (Intelligent Design Creationism)
  • Evolutionary Creationists
  • Theistic Evolutionists
  • Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
  • Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
• EVOLUTION

Flat Earthers

Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

• International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
  Charles K. Johnson

Geocentrism

Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. "It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." (Willis 2000) Both flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology.

• Biblical Astronomer, Cleveland, OH
  astronomy
  Gerardus Bouw
• Creation Science Association for Mid-America, Cleveland, MO.
  The Creation Science Association for Mid-America Home Page
  Tom Willis

Young-Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.

• Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA.
  The Institute for Creation Research
  Henry Morris (president emeritus), John D. Morris (president), Duane Gish, Steven A. Austin, Larry Vardiman, Kenneth B. Cumming, Andrew Snelling, ...
  Whitcomb, John C. & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1961)
  Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1974, 1985)
  newsletter: Acts & Facts (includes Back to Genesis and Impact)
• Answers in Genesis (AIG), Florence, KY.
  Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
  Ken Ham
  periodical: Creation Ex Nihilo
• Creation Research Society (CRS), St. Joseph, MO.
  The Creation Research Society
  D. Russell Humphreys, Wayne Friar, Donald B. DeYoung, Eugene F. Chaffin
  periodical: Creation Research Society Quarterly
• Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL.
  Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism
  Kent Hovind
• Carl Baugh
  Creation Evidences Museum, Glen Rose, TX.

Omphalos

The Omphalos argument, first expounded in a book of that name by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, indeed that an appearance of age is necessary. This position appears in some contemporary young earth creationist writing. For example, Whitcomb & Morris (1961, p. 232) argue that earth's original soils were created appearing old. The position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the universe was created last week with only an appearance of older history.
Old Earth Creationism

Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science.

• American Scientific Affiliation, Ipswich, MA.
  (This groups has mostly OEC members, but it doesn't turn away members and has some YEC and Theistic Evolutionist members, too.)
  American Scientific Affiliation: A Network of Christians in Science
  periodical: Perpsectives on Science and Christian Faith

Gap Creationism (also known as Restitution Creationism)
This view says that there was a long temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, with God recreating the world in 6 days after the gap. This allows both an ancient earth and a Biblical special creation.

• Armstrong, Herbert W., Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead, New York, 1985.
• Jimmy Swaggart

Day-Age Creationism

Day-age creationists interpret each day of creation as a long period of time, even thousands or millions of years. They see a parallel between the order of events presented in Genesis 1 and the order accepted by mainstream science. Day-Age Creationism was more popular than Gap Creationism in the 19th and and early 20th centuries.

• Anonymous, Life--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation? (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Booklyn, NY, 1985)

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism is the most common Old-Earth Creationism view today. It accepts most of modern physical science, even viewing the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God, but rejects much of modern biology. Progressive Creationists generally believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially created, not genetically related to older kinds.

• Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.
  Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink
  Hugh Ross

Intelligent Design Creationism

Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic.
In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC, 1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate to philosophical materialism.

• Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA.,
  Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC)
  Center for Science and Culture - Challenging Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Promoting Intelligent Design
  Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer.
  periodical: Origins & Design
  Behe, Michael, Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, NY, 1996)
  Dembski, William, The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998)
  Johnson, Phillip, Reason in the Balance (Inter-Varsity, Downers Grove, IL, 1995)
• Davis, Percival & D. H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Haughton, Dallas, TX, 1989)

Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one.

• Schneider, Susan, 1984. Evolutionary creationism: Torah solves the problem of missing links.
  Evolutionary Creationism

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

• Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (HarperCollin, San Francisco, 1959, 1980)

Methodological Materialistic Evolution

Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.

• Gould, Stephen J., Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Ballantine Publishing Group, NY, 1999)

Philosophical Materialistic Evolution
Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so is everything else.

• Richard Dawkins
• William Provine

Part 2: Non-Christian Creationism

 

[Golden Yak]

I take it I won't be seeing you getting gas for your car, since there are about 10 different companies to choose from?

I take it I won't be seeing you buy bread, since there are about 10 different brand names to choose from?

So one's as good as the other?

Can you understand what the following verse means?

Pro 8:9 These things are clear to any intelligent person. They are right to anyone with knowledge.

Yikes. Does it mean 'anyone who disagrees with me has neither intelligence nor knowledge?' That's one way to shut out discussion, I guess.

 

[Inan3]

i guess there must be an awful lot of unintelligent christians then.

I was just trying to see if you "understood" what that scripture was saying. Not to trick you but to point out that understanding the scripture is not difficult. WHAT it says is WHAT it says!! It's easy to understand the scriptures. It's just as easy as understanding the sentence, "the boy went to the store on the corner for his mother." There are many things one could add to or take away from that sentence but it is still easy to understand.

 

[Inan3]

So one's as good as the other?



Yikes. Does it mean 'anyone who disagrees with me has neither intelligence nor knowledge?' That's one way to shut out discussion, I guess.

If you read my post explaining my meaning to Hespera, you will see I was not trying to insult or trick her in any way. I was making a point that the scripture is easily understood. I was especially NOT wanting to shut out discussion.

 

[Cabal]

I take it I won't be seeing you getting gas for your car, since there are about 10 different companies to choose from?

I take it I won't be seeing you buy bread, since there are about 10 different brand names to choose from?

Take a dictionary, place it in your lap and just open it to any random page and look at the definitions -- many of which contradict each other.

I think I'll go ahead and take that mindset as a cop-out.

Well, I know my gas company's business charter claims to be inerrant and containing absolute truth, what about yours?

 

[Inan3]

Its simple. if they say different things they cant all be right.

who is right?



Part 1: The Creation/Evolution Continuum in Christian Creationism

Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum (see figure), and most creationist and evolutionist positions may be fit along this continuum (Scott 1999). The successive steps labelled in the figure are described below.

• CREATION
  • Flat Earthers
  • Geocentrists
  • Young Earth Creationists
    • (Omphalos)
  • Old Earth Creationists
    • (Gap Creationism)
    • (Day-Age Creationism)
    • (Progressive Creationism)
    • (Intelligent Design Creationism)
  • Evolutionary Creationists
  • Theistic Evolutionists
  • Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
  • Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
• EVOLUTION

Flat Earthers

Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

• International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
  Charles K. Johnson

Geocentrism

Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. "It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." (Willis 2000) Both flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology.

• Biblical Astronomer, Cleveland, OH
  astronomy
  Gerardus Bouw
• Creation Science Association for Mid-America, Cleveland, MO.
  The Creation Science Association for Mid-America Home Page
  Tom Willis

Young-Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.

• Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA.
  The Institute for Creation Research
  Henry Morris (president emeritus), John D. Morris (president), Duane Gish, Steven A. Austin, Larry Vardiman, Kenneth B. Cumming, Andrew Snelling, ...
  Whitcomb, John C. & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1961)
  Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1974, 1985)
  newsletter: Acts & Facts (includes Back to Genesis and Impact)
• Answers in Genesis (AIG), Florence, KY.
  Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
  Ken Ham
  periodical: Creation Ex Nihilo
• Creation Research Society (CRS), St. Joseph, MO.
  The Creation Research Society
  D. Russell Humphreys, Wayne Friar, Donald B. DeYoung, Eugene F. Chaffin
  periodical: Creation Research Society Quarterly
• Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL.
  Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism
  Kent Hovind
• Carl Baugh
  Creation Evidences Museum, Glen Rose, TX.

Omphalos

The Omphalos argument, first expounded in a book of that name by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, indeed that an appearance of age is necessary. This position appears in some contemporary young earth creationist writing. For example, Whitcomb & Morris (1961, p. 232) argue that earth's original soils were created appearing old. The position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the universe was created last week with only an appearance of older history.
Old Earth Creationism

Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science.

• American Scientific Affiliation, Ipswich, MA.
  (This groups has mostly OEC members, but it doesn't turn away members and has some YEC and Theistic Evolutionist members, too.)
  American Scientific Affiliation: A Network of Christians in Science
  periodical: Perpsectives on Science and Christian Faith

Gap Creationism (also known as Restitution Creationism)
This view says that there was a long temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, with God recreating the world in 6 days after the gap. This allows both an ancient earth and a Biblical special creation.

• Armstrong, Herbert W., Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead, New York, 1985.
• Jimmy Swaggart

Day-Age Creationism

Day-age creationists interpret each day of creation as a long period of time, even thousands or millions of years. They see a parallel between the order of events presented in Genesis 1 and the order accepted by mainstream science. Day-Age Creationism was more popular than Gap Creationism in the 19th and and early 20th centuries.

• Anonymous, Life--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation? (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Booklyn, NY, 1985)

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism is the most common Old-Earth Creationism view today. It accepts most of modern physical science, even viewing the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God, but rejects much of modern biology. Progressive Creationists generally believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially created, not genetically related to older kinds.

• Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.
  Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink
  Hugh Ross

Intelligent Design Creationism

Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic.
In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC, 1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate to philosophical materialism.

• Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA.,
  Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC)
  Center for Science and Culture - Challenging Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Promoting Intelligent Design
  Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer.
  periodical: Origins & Design
  Behe, Michael, Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, NY, 1996)
  Dembski, William, The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998)
  Johnson, Phillip, Reason in the Balance (Inter-Varsity, Downers Grove, IL, 1995)
• Davis, Percival & D. H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Haughton, Dallas, TX, 1989)

Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one.

• Schneider, Susan, 1984. Evolutionary creationism: Torah solves the problem of missing links.
  Evolutionary Creationism

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

• Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (HarperCollin, San Francisco, 1959, 1980)

Methodological Materialistic Evolution

Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.

• Gould, Stephen J., Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Ballantine Publishing Group, NY, 1999)

Philosophical Materialistic Evolution
Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so is everything else.

• Richard Dawkins
• William Provine

Part 2: Non-Christian Creationism

Wow, that is pretty impressive. Thanks, Hespera. I guess my vote is somewhere between Old Earth, Gap Creationism and Intelligent Design. I can see, though, that I am not 100% in line with any of them. I believe in an old earth, 1. because of the wording in Gen 1:1 & 2 and other scriptures of the creation account which suggest a possible gap between the beginning creation and it's becoming void and without form, and 2. because of some of science evidence. I believe in an Intelligent Design because God IS intelligent and creation is full of wonderful design. I'm not exactly sure of all they do believe as I didn't get my understanding from any of those groups of people. I got it from my study of the Bible and from the Spirit of God, my Teacher. I'm not influenced by much science either but I can put two and two together. From what I read here, and what I have heard, I'm quite sure that what I believe about the six days of creation is probably where I differ from most creationists. I'm sure if I was able to explain it to them that many would agree with me or at least agree that it was possible. (It's sometimes hard to give up your beliefs for new ones)

Anyway I was wondering which one were you suggesting was the "all but one" which was refuted by the others?

 

[Hespera]

Wow, that is pretty impressive. Thanks, Hespera. I guess my vote is somewhere between Old Earth, Gap Creationism and Intelligent Design. I can see, though, that I am not 100% in line with any of them. I believe in an old earth, 1. because of the wording in Gen 1:1 & 2 and other scriptures of the creation account which suggest a possible gap between the beginning creation and it's becoming void and without form, and 2. because of some of science evidence. I believe in an Intelligent Design because God IS intelligent and creation is full of wonderful design. I'm not exactly sure of all they do believe as I didn't get my understanding from any of those groups of people. I got it from my study of the Bible and from the Spirit of God, my Teacher. I'm not influenced by much science either but I can put two and two together. From what I read here, and what I have heard, I'm quite sure that what I believe about the six days of creation is probably where I differ from most creationists. I'm sure if I was able to explain it to them that many would agree with me or at least agree that it was possible. (It's sometimes hard to give up your beliefs for new ones)

Anyway I was wondering which one were you suggesting was the "all but one" which was refuted by the others?

i think i said at the very best all but one is refuted by the others. i personally think they are all wrong.

 

[mzungu]

And yet, for both the Bible and Irangate we have information available to us to help us discern what is what. One only needs to seek and they will find. Especially the Bible because it has it's own information. Scripture interprets scripture. And then there's the eternal God. He's His own vast source of information and He makes it readily available to those who seek Him.

Is that why there are so many different translations and variations of the Bible? Is that why there are so many sects and churches that do not see eye to eye?

 

[mzungu]

I take it I won't be seeing you getting gas for your car, since there are about 10 different companies to choose from?

I take it I won't be seeing you buy bread, since there are about 10 different brand names to choose from?

Take a dictionary, place it in your lap and just open it to any random page and look at the definitions -- many of which contradict each other.

I think I'll go ahead and take that mindset as a cop-out.

Is that why you only accept the KJV over all others including the original texts? Sure, all countries have governments; that does not mean they [governments] are all the same and apply the same principles.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that why you only accept the KJV over all others including the original texts?

QV point #3 here: 231

 

[mzungu]

QV point #3 here: 231

There is nothing there that even remotely authorises the KJV to supersede all other Bible translations.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing there that even remotely authorises the KJV to supersede all other Bible translations.

That's right -- what's your point?

You asked a different question, and I answered it.

I'm KJVO because other translations started showing up on bookshelves, and I have to take a stand.

That's what the KJVO movement is all about.

 

[mzungu]

That's right -- what's your point?

You asked a different question, and I answered it.

I'm KJVO because other translations started showing up on bookshelves, and I have to take a stand.

That's what the KJVO movement is all about.

What did you expect in the land where everything is for sale including God? They have no shame to peddle their beliefs so what did you expect?

Anyway AV the above is a far cry to stating that the KJV is above the original texts. Should I remind you that Jesus himself commanded that we keep to the scriptures and not alter even an iota? If the KJV is a direct and true translation then it is in keeping with what Jesus commanded. If on the other hand the KJV differs from the original texts then it is not in keeping with Jesus command and should be considered heretical.

If you ask me; I like the KJV. it is very well written and not forgetting the Greek Bible which is still in the original classical Greek language.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway AV the above is a far cry to stating that the KJV is above the original texts.

I do place It above the original texts -- but only if It differs from the original texts.

Should I remind you that Jesus himself commanded that we keep to the scriptures and not alter even an iota?

That's not what God said.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If you ask me; I like the KJV. it is very well written and not forgetting the Greek Bible which is still in the original classical Greek language.

We're taught to shun the classical Greek -- it's full of error.

It's the Koine Greek that the KJV comes from.

 

[mzungu]

I do place It above the original texts -- but only if It differs from the original texts.

That's not what God said.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I know that it matters little to you but when you say that the original texts are lesser to the KJV then what you are implying is exactly what Jesus said not to do.

We're taught to shun the classical Greek -- it's full of error.

It's the Koine Greek that the KJV comes from.

So if the original texts are full of error then the Bible is in error. Unless you can show me where in your Bible does it specifically state that the KJV is the final authority over the original text then I am afraid you will have some explaining to do at the pearly gates. Violating God's command not to change the scriptures will not go well with the Boss.

But hey! If it comes to it then I shall put in a good word for you