Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[Split Rock]

It wouldn't matter, would it?

The Mormons claim an angel left plates and, I take it, you don't believe them either ... do you?

So I'll just take your point with a grain of salt.

Do you mean the gold plates, with Egyptian hieroglyphs, that Smith read with a magic "seeing stone?"

No.... I don't believe that.. do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you mean the gold plates, with Egyptian hieroglyphs, that Smith read with a magic "seeing stone?"

Them's the ones.

No.... I don't believe that.. do you?

I do not.

 

[kiwimac]

That said: the Angel Moroni and his plates have more solid evidence than creationism does!

 

[AV1611VET]

That said: the Angel Moroni and his plates have more solid evidence than creationism does!

I'll just go ahead and take 670 with a grain of salt.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'll just go ahead and take 670 with a grain of salt.

You should ease off on the salt consumption. You'll do yourself some damage.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should ease off on the salt consumption. You'll do yourself some damage.

Not as miniscully small as I take these posts.

 

[KWCrazy]

That said: the Angel Moroni and his plates have more solid evidence than creationism does!

You're a minister and you don't believe in the word of God?

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

That said: the Angel Moroni and his plates have more solid evidence than creationism does!
​

You're a minister and you don't believe in the word of God?

Please be honest. "Believing in the word of God" is entirely different from believing in a man-made tradition of relatively recent development, such as "creation science" and SDA Ellen White-GeorgeM.Price-Morris&Whitcomb Young Earth Creationism. These are something else entirely. (They are opinions without scriptural or scientific basis.)

Once again: your confusion and your cherished traditions about what the Bible states is NOT what other Bible-affirming Christ-followers "believe in".

You assume that your sect "speaks for God". The rest of us do not.


.

 

[CabVet]

You're a minister and you don't believe in the word of God?

Not your interpretation of it. But of course, just like dad you claim that your interpretation is the word of God, correct?

 

[KWCrazy]

Not your interpretation of it. But of course, just like dad you claim that your interpretation is the word of God, correct?

It't not the part where the Word is interpreted that bothers you. It's when the Bible takes great pains to state that the evening and the morning are one day; when when it describes creation as taking six day. It bothers you when the Bible speaks in very specific terms of a global flood that destroyed every land animal not on the ark. Such events invalidate your claims of molecules-to-man and your contention that the laws of science; not God; control the world. Because you choose to believe that you proclaim the Bible false, God a liar and Christianity to be mythology.

It doesn't require interpretation to read words and believe that they mean exactly what they say.

 

[46AND2]

It't not the part where the Word is interpreted that bothers you. It's when the Bible takes great pains to state that the evening and the morning are one day; when when it describes creation as taking six day. It bothers you when the Bible speaks in very specific terms of a global flood that destroyed every land animal not on the ark. Such events invalidate your claims of molecules-to-man and your contention that the laws of science; not God; control the world. Because you choose to believe that you proclaim the Bible false, God a liar and Christianity to be mythology.

Pretty sure none of that bothers Cabvet in the slightest.

It doesn't require interpretation to read words and believe that they mean exactly what they say.

Words aren't always meant to be understood literally. That's the beautiful versatility of language.

Sometimes gleaning meaning from what the words literally say can be missing the intended message altogether.

 

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't require interpretation to read words and believe that they mean exactly what they say.

The evidence found in the creation is not supposed to be taken literally?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're a minister and you don't believe in the word of God?

Do you not believe in the evidence found in the creation?

 

[kiwimac]

It't not the part where the Word is interpreted that bothers you. It's when the Bible takes great pains to state that the evening and the morning are one day; when when it describes creation as taking six day. It bothers you when the Bible speaks in very specific terms of a global flood that destroyed every land animal not on the ark. Such events invalidate your claims of molecules-to-man and your contention that the laws of science; not God; control the world. Because you choose to believe that you proclaim the Bible false, God a liar and Christianity to be mythology.

It doesn't require interpretation to read words and believe that they mean exactly what they say.

1: According to the Bible (if you are taking it literally) the creation took one day

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

2: The word for 'Day' used in Genesis is 'Yom' which has the following meanings.

yom from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

3: The Book of Genesis is not a science text, it is not about HOW God created but WHY God created. It is allegory and myth rolled into one package.

 

[AV1611VET]

2: The word for 'Day' used in Genesis is 'Yom' which has the following meanings.

Of all those meanings for YOM, which one is it in Genesis 1?

From Strong's Concordance:

1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
​

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
​

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
​

1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
​

SOURCE

 

[verysincere]

The OP question remains:
Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?



Is it a matter of ignorance of the terminology OR a matter or dishonesty? Or simply a strategy of obfuscation for propaganda tactical purposes?

 

[kiwimac]

Of all those meanings for YOM, which one is it in Genesis 1?

From Strong's Concordance:

1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
​

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
​

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
​

1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
​

SOURCE

I note you simply ignored the bits you did not like from my post.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Yom from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

3: The Book of Genesis is not a science text, it is not about HOW God created but WHY God created. It is allegory and myth rolled into one package.

Also you might like to show me just how I 'Vented my anger and ridicule at YECs' in that particular post. I looked but could find neither anger nor any trace of ridicule.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

This thread has been cleaned.
Stick to the topic rather than mocking one another, please.
Thanks

Mod Hat Off​

 

[KWCrazy]

1: According to the Bible (if you are taking it literally) the creation took one day

No it doesn't.

2: The word for 'Day' used in Genesis is 'Yom' which has the following meanings.

Yes, it does, just as the word day does now. In my day, it was more easily understood. However, an evening and morning always means one calendar day; a single rotation of the earth. It never means anything else.

3: The Book of Genesis is not a science text, it is not about HOW God created but WHY God created. It is allegory and myth rolled into one package.

Genesis describes the process and the time line. Exodus provides the elapsed time since in terms of the generations. Genesis also describes a global flood. Either you believe that the Bible is the word of God or you don't. It's not any more complicated than that.

 

[verysincere]

Yes, it does, just as the word day does now. In my day, it was more easily understood. However, an evening and morning always means one calendar day; a single rotation of the earth. It never means anything else.

1) No. There is no such "rule" in Hebrew. In fact, evening-to-evening has the meaning of one 24hour day. [And because a 24hour YOM starts at sunset on one "calendar day" and ends at sunset on the next "calendar day", your claim about "one calendar day" is totally foreign to the Hebrew cultural mindset.]

2) "The evening and the morning was the Nth YOM" if interpreted LITERALLY would define one NIGHT......but in fact it is an IDIOM with the meaning, "from start to finish".

>It never means anything else.

Except for when it does.

Either you believe that the Bible is the word of God or you don't. It's not any more complicated than that.

This a popular logical fallacy among many young earth creationists. They leap from their sect's cherished interpretation to presuming that daring to DOUBT their claims IS EQUIVALENT TO REJECTING THE BIBLE ITSELF! That's quite a leap!

Of course, it is also rubbish. I left the young earth creationist and "creation science" movement because once I developed enough fluency in the Hebrew language and linguistics in general, I began to rely upon what the Bible ACTUALLY states----as opposed to what your TRADITIONS demand that I believe.

You see, I could also play your same game and declare: "Here's what the Bible says ---and either you believe it or you don't. It is not any more complicated than that!" [Sound familiar? One thing is for sure: dogmatic declaration is certainly much easier than having to investigate what the Biblical text actually states.]