Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think it may help to go over some of the proper principles of scriptural exegises. First and foremost it must be understood that one has to grasp the thought of the inerrancy of scripture. If you don't believe that the the rest of what I am about to say won't be understood. So just for a moment understand that we believe in the inerrancy of scripture. With that essential foundation in mind here are the principles.

1. The scriptures must be taken literally first.
2. If it does not make,sense literally then look,for another meaning
3. Context is king. The verses context comes first, then the surrounding scriptures, then the chapter, book then other scriptures.
4. The bible does not contradict itself. If it seems to then look again at context. Let scripture interpret scripture.

These of course are simple principles but are helpful.

Since scripture does not contradict and the literal understanding
If Gen 2 vs 1 is in play it becomes context issue.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

So you prove the inerrancy of scripture by assuming the inerrancy of scripture. Thank you for your confession.

 

[Colter]

All the claims made in that post are irrefutable - you merely post that you do not "like them" -- that is not the same as proving the post to be a "straw man". To do that you would need to address an actual detail in the post.

Details matter.

But the claims in that post don't address my reply, they address another aspect of evolution. Some robot may let you get away with that shell game but not me. We've all had quite enough of that game from religion!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You say that because it doesn't agree with what you've chosen to believe.
To ensure maximum accuracy and readability, the NIV went through perhaps the most rigorous translation process in history. First, each book of the Bible was assigned to a translation team consisting of:
• Two lead translators
• Two translation consultants
• One English style consultant (if necessary)

Then another team of five Bible scholars reviewed their work, carefully comparing it to the original biblical text and assessing its readability. From there, each book went to a general committee of 8 to 12 scholars. As part of the final review, outside critics gave feedback. Samples were tested with pastors, students, and laypeople. Perhaps no other Bible translation has gone through a more thorough process to ensure accuracy and readability....

Well,, there are other examples where the NIV indulges in "rescue" interpretations.

Take the counting of the villages in the lowland, given by Joshua:

Josh 15:33-36
In the lowland: Eshtaol and Zorah and Ashnah, and Zanoah and En-gannim, Tappuah and Enam, Jarmuth and Adullam, Socoh and Azekah, and Shaaraim and Adithaim and Gederah and Gederothaim; fourteen cities with their villages.
NASU

Anyone can count and see that there are fifteen named here, not fourteen. How does the NIV translate this passage?

Josh 15:33-36
3 In the western foothills:

Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah, Zanoah, En Gannim, Tappuah, Enam, Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Shaaraim, Adithaim and Gederah (or Gederothaim)-fourteen towns and their villages.
NIV

See? Another example of rescue interpretation. The NIV folks would do that from time to time. Needless to say, there is no "or" and no parentheses in the original Hebrew.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think it may help to go over some of the proper principles of scriptural exegises. First and foremost it must be understood that one has to grasp the thought of the inerrancy of scripture. If you don't believe that the the rest of what I am about to say won't be understood. So just for a moment understand that we believe in the inerrancy of scripture. With that essential foundation in mind here are the principles.

1. The scriptures must be taken literally first.
2. If it does not make,sense literally then look,for another meaning
3. Context is king. The verses context comes first, then the surrounding scriptures, then the chapter, book then other scriptures.
4. The bible does not contradict itself. If it seems to then look again at context. Let scripture interpret scripture.

These of course are simple principles but are helpful.

Since scripture does not contradict and the literal understanding
If Gen 2 vs 1 is in play it becomes context issue.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

By the way, I do use your method above. Only I take into account the stars, the rocks, and the genomes as from God, as well as the Bible. Therefore, when I get to step 2, I do just like you said.

I look for another meaning.

And I have worked out a way to do that with an old earth and with evolution as being true, only some people around here don't like it.

but I'm only doing exactly what you said to do right here.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So, in another thread, there's an off-topic discussion and I'd like to move it here.

It saddens me how many Christians think so highly of Man and his science that they think that we know better than God. Some people seek to allegorize Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and say that God was speaking figuratively and that He didn't really mean what He said in Genesis.

Okay, fine.

But you wanna tell me why God, in Exodus 20:9-11 would tell Moses straight upfront that He created the Earth and everything on it in 6 days?

Here's the text for reference (KJV):



God straight up says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day".

God said this, to Moses, directly. He wasn't using allegory, He wasn't playing around, He said "Since I worked 6 days and rested the 7th, you're going to work 6 days and rest on the 7th also." (paraphrased).

So.... you either believe God or you don't.

If you're going to say that God created Life on Earth over millions of years, then that forces you to call Him a liar in Exodus 20:11. If you're going to say that God was telling the truth, that means Man is a liar.

I leave you with Paul's opinion on that:

Romans 3:4: God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Do you believe that God, the infinite great eternal timeless spirit is capable of resting and taking refreshment?

Ex 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. KJV

 

[rjs330]

So you prove the inerrancy of scripture by assuming the inerrancy of scripture. Thank you for your confession.

First and foremost the innerency of scripture has been well tested and well documented. So no further explanation is needed. A great read on the scriptures is called Evidence that Demands a Verdict. However it must be acknowleged that ultimately belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God is a matter of faith. Spiritual truths are spiritually discerned. The bible claims that.

I have no issue at all in acknowledging that I have faith in the word of God and the truths presented therein. There have been far more proofs of the accuracy of scripture than any other ancient book. And archaeology is always finding something that verifies the Bible.

So yes I assume the inerrancy of scripture, but it's not an empty assumption. But I also admit that there is faith involved. I have a Bible literature degree and have spent 40 years studying the scriptures. So I have a pretty decent grasp of the concepts of proper biblical study.

That's the difference between evolutionists and creationists is we admit that our belief is based upon unprovable beliefs. No human was there at the point of creation to observe it. And there is no way to reproduce it or test it. Evolutionists won't admit that their hypothesis based on unproven and unprovable thoery.

If you refuse to believe in the inerrancy of scripture With all the information out there on the subject then I am certainly not going to be able convince you on a forum.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

First and foremost the innerency of scripture has been well tested and well documented. . . .

Only by those who test it, like yourself, by assuming it to be true first. Writing down your opinion on a subject is not really "documentation".

The only way to maintain inerrancy of scripture is to re-interpret contradictions until they are no longer contradictions. You can do that . . . but don't fool yourself into thinking it proves the scripture are inerrant.

 

[BobRyan]

But the claims in that post don't address my reply, they address another aspect of evolution. Some robot may let you get away with that shell game but not me. We've all had quite enough of that game from religion!

When you show a diagram of the form "we finally got the Bible right" -- well here is what you mean by that statement, given your "attack-the-bible-first" method of avoiding the problems in blind-faith evolutionism's doctrines.

Besides, the Noah flood is a silly myth, but it does provide a very, very flimsy avenue of escape for the remaining Bible worshiping generations which will become extinct themselves in the future.

And yes, the creation story was basically made up, it was written by the arrogant chosen people for the arrogant chosen people. Jesus never said we should attach his gospel to the Old Testament.

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

Jesus quotes the OT text as written by Moses - and also affirms the "details" of marriage in Genesis 2 -- instead of the wildly abusive-to-the-text "story was basically made up, it was written by the arrogant chosen people".

Still - you have this one point in your favor -- your "attack the Bible first" solution in defense of blind-faith evolutionism is much-predicted and Darwin himself confessed to this fact.

(As I recall - the title of this thread is "Ex 20:9-11" -- remember??)

 

[BobRyan]

Do you believe that God, the infinite great eternal timeless spirit is capable of resting and taking refreshment?

Ex 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. KJV

New Covenant "made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah - ... I will write My Laws on their mind and heart" Jer 31:31-33, Hebrews 8:6-10..

Ten Commandments (Ex 20 -- where we find Ex 20:8-11)
"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord Made.."

Ten Commandments start like this - "And God spoke all these words: 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."


So then -- Ex 20:8-11 "
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."


Gen 3
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

 

[BobRyan]

Allow me to illustrate --

"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


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 paleontologist 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.]

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

It's not "junk science" to sincere truth seekers. ..
It is a fact that the fossil record deposited over many different ages show signs of diverse life that lived at different times. That alone, without evolutionary speculation contradicts the Hebrews guesswork in Genesis.

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,

You keep recycling the same straw man.

Irrefutable posts that you find "inconvenient" do not vanish each time you fail to refute them.

This may come as a surprise to some evolutionists.

In this case it is Your own diehard atheist evolutionist scientist - giving the "evidence" that you find "inconvenient".

IN blind faith evolutionism "all news is good news" and when you find something that is not good news - and you can't refute it ... shoot the messenger??
=========================================================================

All the claims made in that post are irrefutable - you merely post that you do not "like them" -- that is not the same as proving the post to be a "straw man". To do that you would need to address an actual detail in the post.

Details matter.

The point of the post was to address the evidence - the data, behind the claim that blind-faith evolutionism is in fact junk-science - it uses the methods of junk-science.

It appeals to "stories easy enough to make up"

This by confession of your own atheist evolutionist authors.

But the claims in that post don't address my reply

Your reply was that you do not want to talk about evidence for the junk-science nature of evolutionism - you just want to ask questions about what the Bible says -to see if modern observations in nature have uncovered every fact, every piece of data, and solved every question regarding God's own statement on origins.

, they address another aspect of evolution. Some robot may let you get away with that

The robot-defense will not work here to justify your not looking at the actual details in that post as they fully sport the claim that evolutionism is being promoted via junk-science methods, confirmed frauds that are 'lamentable' even by atheist standards.

 

[BobRyan]

First and foremost the innerency of scripture has been well tested and well documented. So no further explanation is needed. A great week in the scriptures is called evidence that demands a verdict. However it must be acknowleged that ultimately belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God is a matter of faith. Spiritual truths are spiritually discerned. The bible claims that.

I have no issue at all in acknowledging that I have faith in the word of God and the truths presented therein. There have been far more proofs of the accuracy of scripture than any other ancient book. And archaeology is always finding something that verifies the Bible.

So yes I assume the inerrancy of scripture, but it's not an empty assumption.

As Darwin pointed out (quoted on post #2 on this thread) "belief in" evolutionism requires that one trash the Bible and Christianity in general.

 

[BobRyan]

So you prove the inerrancy of scripture by assuming the inerrancy of scripture. Thank you for your confession.

What was the "other option" -- blindly believe whatever Darwin says as the the crowd watches him toss his Bible out a window??

Cut-and-paste the Bible? Then say "oops! sorry about that" each time Archaeology comes up with more evidence for Bible statements on history that were at one time "assumed" to be false by our atheist friends?

 

[KWCrazy]

See? Another example of rescue interpretation.

If the two cities in question were the same city which was known by more than one name, then the NIV simply clears up the understanding. I don't know which words were used for "and" and"or." Without having the original text there it's hard to know which is the most accurate. Still, you're straining out gnats and swallowing camels. ALL of the major versions of the Bible say that the creation took six days unless they simply making things up; in which case they should be abandoned altogether.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If the two cities in question were the same city which was known by more than one name, then the NIV simply clears up the understanding. I don't know which words were used for "and" and"or." Without having the original text there it's hard to know which is the most accurate. Still, you're straining out gnats and swallowing camels. ALL of the major versions of the Bible say that the creation took six days unless they simply making things up; in which case they should be abandoned altogether.

Hey, we have the Hebrew bible. You can look at the original Hebrew in an inter-lineal web site and see for yourself what the Hebrew says and how it was translated. Here, take a look. Remember, verses 33-36.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/jos15.pdf

No "or".

Of course, the most probable explanation is that two names were written by error where one was meant. But to say that is to speculate and explain away.

You will do that when YOU want to but won't let ME do it and that's not playing fair!

Its OK. I have reality on my side and that's a handicap your side will never overcome.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What was the "other option" -- blindly believe whatever Darwin says as the the crowd watches him toss his Bible out a window??

I'm sure you actually believe that is the way science is done, and of course you have it all wrong. Evaluating evidence and understanding evidence is not doing things "blindly". Denying all evidence no matter what it tells us is the very definition of doing things "blindly".

Speaking of evidence, you have muscles for wiggling your ears. Those are not used by us today, they are vestiges from a previous species that could actually move its ears to good effect.

There, that should help you accept evolution.

Wait, you just don't see it.

Were you saying something about holding opinions . . . blindly?

 

[ScottA]

I'm sure you actually believe that is the way science is done, and of course you have it all wrong. Evaluating evidence and understanding evidence is not doing things "blindly". Denying all evidence no matter what it tells us is the very definition of doing things "blindly".

Speaking of evidence, you have muscles for wiggling your ears. Those are not used by us today, they are vestiges from a previous species that could actually move its ears to good effect.

There, that should help you accept evolution.

Wait, you just don't see it.

Were you saying something about holding opinions . . . blindly?

There is but one answer to such talk by those who obviously have not seen nor heard from God and prefer the knowledge of men:

“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:19-20

 

[Colter]

When you show a diagram of the form "we finally got the Bible right" -- well here is what you mean by that statement, given your "attack-the-bible-first" method of avoiding the problems in blind-faith evolutionism's doctrines.






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

Jesus quotes the OT text as written by Moses - and also affirms the "details" of marriage in Genesis 2 -- instead of the wildly abusive-to-the-text "story was basically made up, it was written by the arrogant chosen people".

Still - you have this one point in your favor -- your "attack the Bible first" solution in defense of blind-faith evolutionism is much-predicted and Darwin himself confessed to this fact.

(As I recall - the title of this thread is "Ex 20:9-11" -- remember??)

Actually, it was the church that relentlessly attacked science FIRST and for centuries! Now that western civilization is free from the withering grasp of ecclesiastical tyranny, we can pursue the facts of the real world without threat of church abuse.

 

[Colter]

Allow me to illustrate --



"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


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 paleontologist 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.]

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







Irrefutable posts that you find "inconvenient" do not vanish each time you fail to refute them.

This may come as a surprise to some evolutionists.

In this case it is Your own diehard atheist evolutionist scientist - giving the "evidence" that you find "inconvenient".

IN blind faith evolutionism "all news is good news" and when you find something that is not good news - and you can't refute it ... shoot the messenger??
=========================================================================


The point of the post was to address the evidence - the data, behind the claim that blind-faith evolutionism is in fact junk-science - it uses the methods of junk-science.

It appeals to "stories easy enough to make up"

This by confession of your own atheist evolutionist authors.



Your reply was that you do not want to talk about evidence for the junk-science nature of evolutionism - you just want to ask questions about what the Bible says -to see if modern observations in nature have uncovered every fact, every piece of data, and solved every question regarding God's own statement on origins.




The robot-defense will not work here to justify your not looking at the actual details in that post as they fully sport the claim that evolutionism is being promoted via junk-science methods, confirmed frauds that are 'lamentable' even by atheist standards.

I looked at the details of what you posted the first of many times that you posted the same thing. You focus on missing links because you can't explain the multiple layers of fossils on an old earth. You have misapplied faith in God onto faith in Hebrew Holy men as some sort of superhuman agents.

 

[rjs330]

I'm sure you actually believe that is the way science is done, and of course you have it all wrong. Evaluating evidence and understanding evidence is not doing things "blindly". Denying all evidence no matter what it tells us is the very definition of doing things "blindly".

Speaking of evidence, you have muscles for wiggling your ears. Those are not used by us today, they are vestiges from a previous species that could actually move its ears to good effect.

There, that should help you accept evolution.

Wait, you just don't see it.

Were you saying something about holding opinions . . . blindly?

Well once again you postulate the evidence. There is NO EVIDENCE for evolution. No one has been able to observe evolution and no one has been able to reproduce it. The evidence is assumption and supposition.

And it contradicts the Bible. My faith is in God's words not man's hypothesis. I don't think I'm smarter than scientists. But God is. He is uniquely qualified to say how things came into being. Evolutionists have faith in an unprovable hypothesis. I have faith in God.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

Exodus confirms the six day creation.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Colter]

Five Proofs of Evolution
Richard Peacock

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.



2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.



3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.



4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.



5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.