Maybe if you were not using such a corrupt translation of the Bible it might help you.
... It is only a problem with a Darwinian tainted mind who cannot grasp how He does it.
You haven't made any point except that you cannnot grasp the power, mind, no ability of the Creator God you claim to believe in.
This is your problem, not mine. You don't know what you're talking about.
The irony is that my post #64 is essentially condensed from DA Carson's sermon delivered at the Gospel Coalition LA Regional Conference about a year ago:
What is the Gospel, and how does it work?
I'm sure you'd love to tell Carson, a noted critic of liberals and author of books such as "The Gagging of God", that his mind is tainted by Darwinianism and that he cannot grasp the power, mind or ability of the Creator God he claims to believe him. I think there's something in the Bible about not bearing false testimony, but I can't quite seem to remember it - can you?
Oh wait, I'm working from a "corrupt" translation of the Bible. I guess if I read this:
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. (Rev 5:5-6, KJV)
instead of this:
And one of the elders said to me, Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals. And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Rev 5:5-6, ESV2011)
I'd get it right. And
in fact I do. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the KJV, because it in fact
strengthens my argument. You see, the original Greek text does not state that John saw a lamb. It states, as the KJV diction makes clear: "I beheld ... and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb ... " In other words, the text doesn't say that John saw a Lamb. The text says that John looked and
there was a Lamb.
This is important. Your entire thesis was that God was in some way shapeshifting Jesus - "a God who can cause people to see two things at once...or that He can cause some people to see one thing and others to see quite another", in your own words. I can reconcile that in a passage which says that John saw a Lamb, for sure. But in a passage which says that John looked and there actually
was a Lamb? No dice. Similarly, the elder does not say that he sees a Lion; what he says is "behold, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah ... " which means to say that there
actually is a Lion to be looked at, and not just some strange thing which looks like a lion if you squint at it the right way (and clearly John didn't). And
that is not a translation problem.
Now, if you want to introduce me to a third translation which alleviates your problem, you're more than welcome. But I think not. I've never seen anyone call any modern translation of the Bible "corrupt" unless they were pledging their allegiance to the 1611 KJV. Which makes it all the more ironic that, considering you think it's the only proper translation of Scripture, I took the trouble to refer to it
and you didn't.
Evolution says that the account of Adam and Eve is nothing but a story. If we can't accept the account of Adam and Eve as literal, why should we accept anything else in the Bible as literal. ...
Evolution says that the first Adam wasn't a literal person. Why should they believe the last Adam was?
shernren said:
calmly explains all the reasons
Such gyrations. Why not just accept the Bible for what it says?
Firstly, that's just plain rude. You asked questions, I answered them. Or were you also - shock, horror! -
lying? People who ask questions normally want to know the answers; it appears you didn't, as my answers come across to you as "gyrations" (the use of which, by the way, shows that English comprehension shouldn't be your problem) unworthy of any discussion besides what is essentially "noob, you don't accept the Bible!" I could try to answer you argumentatively, but I want to see if you can perhaps empathize with me, by drawing you a similar situation.
Imagine (as has happened to me) that some non-believer, say a Muslim, asks you what it means for you to think that Jesus is the Son of God. You're excited. Someone who disagrees with you actually cares what you think! So you arrange your thoughts and reply firstly that the Gospels are excellent historical sources, and then that Jesus did and said many things which could only be considered divine, and then that the Church has through the ages worshiped Jesus, and finally that all this can only be put together if one believes that Jesus is God - and yet not God the Father, since they are clearly distinct persons, the Father loving the Son and the Son glorifying the Father, so we eventually arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity.
(By the way, this is the actual argument I have articulated - with full conviction - to both Christians and non-Christians when asked. I hope that tells you what my essential doctrinal stances are.)
You wait for a while, and eventually the Muslim says, "Such gyrations. Why not just accept that you believe that God raped Mary to produce baby Jesus?"
Wouldn't that be painful? If nothing else, you have wasted both your time and your questioner's.
Now, I really care very little whether you, Kirkwhisper, or anyone else here comes to accept evolution. But learn at least to actually read the translation you claim is sacrosanct, listen to the answers you receive to the questions you ask, and grant your fellow Christians the kind of respect you would yourself hope to receive.