Remodeling the Bible as a book of truth instead of a book of myths

[joshua 1 9]

Big contradiction..If evolutionism is true...then Paul was wrong where he said sin and death entered by ONE man.

Wow you take the prize for the Biggest logical fallacy I have ever seen. That aside look a LOT closer at what Paul said: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--"

Paul does not say there was no DEATH in the world. He said there was no SIN in the world. Science clearly shows us that there was death in the world before Adam and Eve lived in Eden around 6,000 years ago. There is no conflict between true science and a true understanding of the Bible. The problem is when people do not understand science or they do not understand the Bible. That is why science and religion are like our left and our right hand. We need both. As a check and balance to be sure that we properly understand. Science and religion can be a marriage or it can be a divorce. Each individual can decide what they want and how they want to live. I for one hate divorce.

"For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Mal 2:16

 

[-57]

Wow you take the prize for the Biggest logical fallacy I have ever seen. That aside look a LOT closer at what Paul said: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--"

Paul does not say there was no DEATH in the world. He said there was no SIN in the world. Science clearly shows us that there was death in the world before Adam and Eve lived in Eden around 6,000 years ago. There is no conflict between true science and a true understanding of the Bible. The problem is when people do not understand science or they do not understand the Bible. That is why science and religion are like our left and our right hand. We need both. As a check and balance to be sure that we properly understand. Science and religion can be a marriage or it can be a divorce. Each individual can decide what they want and how they want to live. I for one hate divorce.

"For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Mal 2:16

Sin and death concerning mankind is what Paul is talking about.
Adam sinned and Adam died spiritually and eventually physically. Because of one mans sin..we all sin...and the wages of that sin is death.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sin and death concerning mankind is what Paul is talking about.
Adam sinned and Adam died spiritually and eventually physically. Because of one mans sin..we all sin...and the wages of that sin is death.

Everyone has the same choice today. They can follow Adam or they can follow Christ. We can be conformed to the Image of the Son.

 

[BobRyan]

That is a logical fallacy because there is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the Anglican religion. .

Does the Anglican religion reject the Bible as the Word of God.. reject the virgin birth, reject the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ as "unscientific fiction" - along with the 7 day creation week and flood and all the miracles of the Bible "unscientific" and thus not actually what happened in real history??

 

[BobRyan]

The exaggerated flood myth was a devise used by the Hebrew redactors who were attempting to trace their blood lines

Interesting "story" - sounds like a myth that you have speculated for the sake of convenience.

I prefer the Bible as it reads.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob!

Could you please supply the a link to the source which clearly shows the cause-and-effect you claim occurred..?

That is, Richard Dawkins used to be a Christian until he discovered that the Bible was myth (the cause) and then he became an atheist/agnostic (the effect).

Thanks,

E.I.

It's a valid question -- I'll ask it.

You would like that reference on video ? published in theaters for all the world to see?

Because that has already been done when he was interviewed by Ben Stein .

But I think some people have already posted that they would not "Allow themselves" to see video-taped verbatim evidence that does not flatter T.E. forms of blind-faith-evolutionism.

So much the better for atheists of course --


"Both his parents were interested in natural sciences, and they answered Dawkins's questions in scientific terms.[20] Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing".[21] He was a Christian until halfway through his teenage years, at which point he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life's complexity, and ceased believing in a god.[19] Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing."[19]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Early_life


=========================================

at :50 seconds into this video



"There's a kind of science defense lobby or an evolution defense lobby, in particular," he tells the camera. "They are mostly atheists, but they are wanting to --desperately wanting -- to be friendly to mainstream, sensible religious people. And the way you do that is to tell them that there's no incompatibility between science and religion."


(This plainly rankles).

"If they called me as a witness, and a lawyer said, 'Dr. Dawkins, has your belief in evolution, has your study of evolution turned you toward (atheism)?' I would have to say yes. And that is the worst possible thing I could say for winning you that court case. So people like me are bad news for...the science lobby, the evolution lobby."


(Dawkins adds, )

"By the way, I'm being a h--luva lot more frank and honest in this interview than many people in this field would be."

At 3;04 min:sec

“And it was then – when I did discovered evilution when I discovered Darwinism, when I DID understand it – then that finally killed off my remaining religious faith."

Richard Dawkins. The Movie – “Expelled”

from -- http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/expelled_exposed_exposed005090.html

(caution to true believers in evolutionism's orthodoxy - it is claimed by some that every verbatim video, audio taped recording, document that does not further promote the spread of evolutionism is really an evil trick put on by the world to disadvantage the religion of evolutionism. Please consider that before allowing yourself to read this post)

That is a logical fallacy because there is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the Anglican religion.

Only if you reject the fall of man, the origin of sin, the reason for the Gospel - the Bible as the Word of God etc. And there is a good chance that this is not what Darwin was rejecting doing until he "believed in" evolutionism as the counter doctrine on origins to what we find in the Bible -- just as in the case with Dawkins, Provine, Meyers as seen in that video.

It is a "logical fallacy" to claim that no matter how self-conflicted and illogical a position is -- as long as someone in your denomination holds to it - then it must be "consistent after all".

Christians, agnostics and atheists all admit to the contradiction between the Bible statement on origins and what we find for that doctrine in blind faith evolutionism.

 

[Colter]

Interesting "story" - sounds like a myth that you have speculated for the sake of convenience.

I prefer the Bible as it reads.

Conformity is the easy path, it confuses faith for the suspension of reason.

 

[Colter]

You would like that reference on video ? published in theaters for all the world to see?

Because that has already been done when he was interviewed by Ben Stein .

But I think some people have already posted that they would not "Allow themselves" to see video-taped verbatim evidence that does not flatter T.E. forms of blind-faith-evolutionism.

So much the better for atheists of course --


"Both his parents were interested in natural sciences, and they answered Dawkins's questions in scientific terms.[20] Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing".[21] He was a Christian until halfway through his teenage years, at which point he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life's complexity, and ceased believing in a god.[19] Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing."[19]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Early_life


=========================================

at :50 seconds into this video



"There's a kind of science defense lobby or an evolution defense lobby, in particular," he tells the camera. "They are mostly atheists, but they are wanting to --desperately wanting -- to be friendly to mainstream, sensible religious people. And the way you do that is to tell them that there's no incompatibility between science and religion."


(This plainly rankles).

"If they called me as a witness, and a lawyer said, 'Dr. Dawkins, has your belief in evolution, has your study of evolution turned you toward (atheism)?' I would have to say yes. And that is the worst possible thing I could say for winning you that court case. So people like me are bad news for...the science lobby, the evolution lobby."


(Dawkins adds, )

"By the way, I'm being a h--luva lot more frank and honest in this interview than many people in this field would be."

At 3;04 min:sec

“And it was then – when I did discovered evilution when I discovered Darwinism, when I DID understand it – then that finally killed off my remaining religious faith."

Richard Dawkins. The Movie – “Expelled”

from -- http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/expelled_exposed_exposed005090.html

(caution to true believers in evolutionism's orthodoxy - it is claimed by some that every verbatim video, audio taped recording, document that does not further promote the spread of evolutionism is really an evil trick put on by the world to disadvantage the religion of evolutionism. Please consider that before allowing yourself to read this post)



Only if you reject the fall of man, the origin of sin, the reason for the Gospel - the Bible as the Word of God etc. And there is a good chance that this is not what Darwin was rejecting doing until he "believed in" evolutionism as the counter doctrine on origins to what we find in the Bible -- just as in the case with Dawkins, Provine, Meyers as seen in that video.

It is a "logical fallacy" to claim that no matter how self-conflicted and illogical a position is -- as long as someone in your denomination holds to it - then it must be "consistent after all".

Christians, agnostics and atheists all admit to the contradiction between the Bible statement on origins and what we find for that doctrine in blind faith evolutionism.

Evolution is obvious, it's in the archeological record. And there is a God, so, evolution must be Gods way for the creation of life as we know it.

Sin comes from choice, it is inevitable with the creation of imperfect people. Adam and Eve, who arrived on a previously fallen world, committed their own sin for which they were personally accountable.

Speculation has contaminated the fats of our history.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The exaggerated flood myth was a devise used by the Hebrew redactors who were attempting to trace their blood lines back to Adam and Eve. Unable to do so they decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness. The audience was the child like mind of Bronze Age sheep herders. The loss of Israel was a devistating blow to the nationalist pride of the Israelites. It lead them to convert secular history into a miraculous fiction. In fact some of the history books mentioned within the pseudo biographical narratives of the Israelites disappeared?!?!?!

Paul said there were a lot of arguments and controversy over the genealogies. They have been preserved in the Christian Bible. It is not as much of an Issue for the Hebrews (Judea) now. Of course they do an extensive amount of research on the DNA there in Jerusalem at the University. If you ever go to Orlando at the TBN park there they say that all the genealogies were lost when the temple was burned down in 70 AD.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Big contradiction..If evolutionism is true...then Paul was wrong where he said sin and death entered by ONE man.

Wow how many times do you want to go around this mayberry bush? Let me tell you how you can get this all straightened out. Look and see what Moses tells us about it. Because God gave Moses ALL of his plan of salvation. All Paul was doing was trying to explain to people what Moses taught and perhaps Paul should have let people figure it out for themselves. But they did not have access to the ancient Scriptures the way he did.

 

[-57]

Wow how many times do you want to go around this mayberry bush? Let me tell you how you can get this all straightened out. Look and see what Moses tells us about it. Because God gave Moses ALL of his plan of salvation. All Paul was doing was trying to explain to people what Moses taught and perhaps Paul should have let people figure it out for themselves. But they did not have access to the ancient Scriptures the way he did.

Sorry. I miss your connection.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution is obvious,

Indeed - it is an obviously flawed form of story telling.

it's in the archeological record.

The same way Othaniel Marh's fraudulent horse "series" was "in the archaeological record" - the series that "never happened in nature" and yet is "still on display at the Smithsonian".

hint: " statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."


Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history

===========================================
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland


“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?


I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.


Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

And there is a God

indeed - so we need not settle for "blind faith evolutionism - instead"

,

Adam and Eve, who arrived on a previously fallen world, committed their own sin

You are quoting from the text of blind faith evolutionism -- have you considered the Bible "instead"??

Speculation has contaminated the fats of our history.

This is an evolutionist statement that I am almost inclined to agree with.

Didn't think that was going to happen today.

 

[BobRyan]

All Paul was doing was trying to explain to people what Moses taught and perhaps Paul should have let people figure it out for themselves. But they did not have access to the ancient Scriptures the way he did.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the apostle PAUL ) were SO"

 

[BobRyan]

Big contradiction..If evolutionism is true...then Paul was wrong where he said sin and death entered by ONE man.

Yes that is true.

The reason that Paul was not wrong is ... 2Tim 3:16

"all scripture is given by inspiration from God"....

which is why we find so many Christians on this board.

 

[Colter]

Indeed - it is an obviously flawed form of story telling.




The same way Othaniel Marh's fraudulent horse "series" was "in the archaeological record" - the series that "never happened in nature" and yet is "still on display at the Smithsonian".

hint: " statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."


Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history

===========================================
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland


“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?


I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.


Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]





indeed - so we need not settle for "blind faith evolutionism - instead"

,

You are quoting from the text of blind faith evolutionism -- have you considered the Bible "instead"??



This is an evolutionist statement that I am almost inclined to agree with.

Didn't think that was going to happen today.

Evolution was characterized by "sudden" mutations, those ages upon ages are preserved in the fossil record. Young earth creationism isn't in the record. The exaggerated and inaccurate history written by the people who killed Christ isn't reliable.

 

[Colter]

Yes that is true.

Paul didn't know any better, he was just a sincere religious man in an age of no science. The theory of original sin and dualism was from evolved Persian religion. Besides, death is normal for man on an evolved earth, but Adam and Eve could have lived on indefinatly until their mission was finished except for their sin and default orchestrated by the "crafty beast" who was already evil, already working against Gods plan.

Seems that if God was really going to drown the whole world because of its wickedness he would have destroyed Satan as well.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you grasp the whole situation with Patterson, Bob. He also wrote a letter saying he was aware of where creation-science people had gone with this and that they misunderstood him. He more or less admitted he used a poor choice of words so that the way they sounded gave a meaning precisely opposite from what he intended. The point he was trying to make goes something like this: We have only a very limited window into the past and out into the rest of teh cosmos. Incidentally, this includes creation-science people as well. All we can deal with as hard evidence are remnants of the past. So we always have to speculate. We then are making claims that have a high probability of being true. However, we do not have Absolute Truth based upon Absolute Proof. Science can deal only in probabilities, not absolutes. Another point overlooked by creation-science people. When we say something is a transitional fossil, we know that nobody was around back then to directly observe and record any of this. Hence, we are out on a limb, that is, we are speculating and so dealing in probabilities of truth, and so dealing here with our best bet and guess, and not absolute certainty. He brought this up simply because creation-science people are fond of criticizing science because it cannot provide absolute scientific proof, that is, direct sensory observations of the material, just examine remnants and guess from there. Patterson is saying this is no real criticism or fault, as this is the way science must proceed. Creation-science people may well fault the Big Bang on the grounds there is no first-hand observations to support it. However, what they conveniently forget is that nobody was around to observe God creating in six days either. They, too, can make only guesstimations.

 

[BobRyan]

Big contradiction..If evolutionism is true...then Paul was wrong where he said sin and death entered by ONE man.

Yes that is true.

The reason that Paul was not wrong is ... 2Tim 3:16

"all scripture is given by inspiration from God"....

which is why we find so many Christians on this board.

Paul didn't know any better, he was just a sincere religious man in an age of no science. The theory of original sin and dualism was from evolved Persian religion. Besides, death is normal for man on an evolved earth,

you are reading your speculation into the text.

Seems that if God was really going to drown the whole world because of its wickedness he would have destroyed Satan as well.

God could have destroyed Satan at any time - but man was given the earth. -- See Genesis 1 and 2. It was his responsibility to live here, raise families and "own" the place.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think you grasp the whole situation with Patterson, Bob. He also wrote a letter saying he was aware of where creation-science people had gone with this and that they misunderstood him.

there was never any misunderstanding stated/quoted/added in my quote.

As we all know.

He more or less admitted he used a poor choice of words so that the way they sounded gave a meaning precisely opposite from what he intended.

There is not one statement from Patterson saying that the quote conveys the opposite meaning from what he intended - and we both know it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution is obvious,

Indeed - it is an obviously flawed form of story telling.

it's in the archeological record.

The same way Othaniel Marh's fraudulent horse "series" was "in the archaeological record" - the series that "never happened in nature" and yet is "still on display at the Smithsonian".

hint: " statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."


Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history

===========================================
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland


“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?


I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.


Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

And there is a God

indeed - so we need not settle for "blind faith evolutionism - instead"

,

Adam and Eve, who arrived on a previously fallen world, committed their own sin

You are quoting from the text of blind faith evolutionism -- have you considered the Bible "instead"??

Speculation has contaminated the fats of our history.

This is an evolutionist statement that I am almost inclined to agree with.

Didn't think that was going to happen today.

Evolution was characterized by "sudden" mutations,

A fallacy in logic - that results in the prediction that we today should be seeing "sudden mutations" -- saltations of the form required by the "just so stories" in blind faith evolutionism.

those ages upon ages are preserved in the fossil record. Young earth creationism isn't in the record. The exaggerated and inaccurate history written by the people who killed Christ isn't reliable.

you can fine atheists here and there - that say that... but in general Christians reject just wild speculation.