Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[ScottA]

Not true, he chose from the truer eliments of the scriptures and let the error die on the vine.

Not one jot or tittle. And yet the error does indeed die, as in flames of eternal fire.

 

[Look Up]

Which completely ignores the subject of the read - with its foundation in "legal code" instead of myth and parable.

In the Legal Code of Ex 20:11 it is God speaking (not someone's mother) and God says "SIX DAYS you shall labor..for in SIX DAYS the Lord made...)

I was reacting to KWCrazy's reaction to part of the conversation in connection with the OP in which I was engaged. KWCrazy amusingly broaches the subject of his mother's teaching, to which I respond more or less in kind, but your "mother" inclusion sounds more like a an unfair accusation. I do not well understand what in my previous remarks in reaction to KWCrazy you are objecting to or why you are injecting such objection here. Certainly as I had written on this thread I do not believe Genesis 1 is myth, but whatever defense on this thread backs your apparent claim that Genesis 1 has "its foundation in 'legal code'," I have not been involved in; if this is the "subject of the read" you claim I have ignored, surely such implied narrow demand for my engagement is unfair; more is going on in the conversation. I am more familiar with the plausible opposing view--assuming I read your remarks above correctly--that the Genesis 1 & 2 narrative is in some respects foundational to the Mosaic legal code (of which creation-Sabbath to Decalogue-Sabbath is one example--rather than the other way around--see my post #45 on p. 3 of this thread (and #98 on p. 5).

 

[Colter]

Not one jot or tittle. And yet the error does indeed die, as in flames of eternal fire.

John warned of the wrath to come, but no wrath came, just a very nice Son of God who revealed the true loving God. Indeed Johns error died.


New International Version
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

 

[BobRyan]

I was reacting to KWCrazy's reaction to part of the conversation in connection with the OP in which I was engaged. KWCrazy amusingly broaches the subject of his mother's teaching, to which I respond more or less in kind, but your "mother" inclusion sounds more like a an unfair accusation. I do not well understand what in my previous remarks in reaction to KWCrazy you are objecting to or why you are injecting such objection here. Certainly as I had written on this thread I do not believe Genesis 1 is myth, but whatever defense on this thread backs your apparent claim that Genesis 1 has "its foundation in 'legal code'," I have not been involved in;

I am sorry for the confusion - however as for the title of the thread and how it relates to Genesis 1:2-2:4 - Ex 20:11 provides the same summary statement on Genesis 1 that we find in Genesis 2:1-4 and my reason for pointing this out - is that Ex 20 is one of the TEN Commandments - so it is not parable - it is "legal code" in terms of "the kind of writing that it is".

So then in Ex 20:8-11 we have the 4th commandment - the Sabbath Commandment.

But in Gen 2:1-4 we have the summation of the Genesis 1 6 days of creation - using the very same language. So then "Six days you shall labor...for in SIX days the Lord Made..." is not something that is easily spin-doctored into parable or myth or symbolism.

 

[BobRyan]

John warned of the wrath to come, but no wrath came,

So then we have reached the end of time and too late for God to do anything else?

I think that would be large assumption on your part.

Christ said "I came to cast fire down on the earth" and in Rev 12 we find that at the ascension of Christ - Satan was cast down to Earth.

The ultimate ending being what John wrote in Rev 20 -- fire cast down to the earth - the Lake of Fire event -- still future.

 

[BobRyan]

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. .

The Creator invented a genetic code - and associated system for encoding, transmitting, decoding - and error-correcting such that it is beyond our technology to duplicate. And this is proof that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large and talented pile of dirt -- and a sufficiently long and talented length of time - filled with improbable just-so stories"???

please be serious!

And BTW - those bacteria have been "observed" for 50,000 generations since 1988 and they remain -- bacteria. (Observations in nature - that would simulate more than 2 million years for humans to reach 50,000 generations)

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

You need to get some new material and stop the straw man practice of putting words in peoples moths for you to disagree with as if they ever said a pile of dirt becomes life. BTW, the dirt beneath our feet was actually once alive (part of life bodies) on an old earth.

Each time you come to an irrefutable post - and cannot refute it, cannot deal with the details in the post - you simply call it a "straw man" -- is this your word for "irrefutable post?"

If so - I suggest finding another word for it.

 

[Colter]

So then we have reached the end of time and too late for God to do anything else?

I think that would be large assumption on your part.

Christ said "I came to cast fire down on the earth" and in Rev 12 we find that at the ascension of Christ - Satan was cast down to Earth.

The ultimate ending being what John wrote in Rev 20 -- fire cast down to the earth - the Lake of Fire event -- still future.

In the failure of Jesus to live up to the erroneous expectation of a Jewish Messiah, followers speculated after he left that Jesus would soon return to fulfill the apocalyptic destruction. They were wrong!

And anyone hearing Johns preaching would have understood him to mean the wrath was eminent, It wasn't and never will. John was simply baseing his thinking on Old Testiment influences like Daniel. Lots of genocide, wrath and destruction, huffing and puffing in the OT concept of deity. Jesus changed all that.

 

[Look Up]

I am sorry for the confusion - however as for the title of the thread and how it relates to Genesis 1:2-2:4 - Ex 20:11 provides the same summary statement on Genesis 1 that we find in Genesis 2:1-4 and my reason for pointing this out - is that Ex 20 is one of the TEN Commandments - so it is not parable - it is "legal code" in terms of "the kind of writing that it is".

So then in Ex 20:8-11 we have the 4th commandment - the Sabbath Commandment.

But in Gen 2:1-4 we have the summation of the Genesis 1 6 days of creation - using the very same language. So then "Six days you shall labor...for in SIX days the Lord Made..." is not something that is easily spin-doctored into parable or myth or symbolism.

I have no disagreements with the above statement.

 

[SkyWriting]

The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Scientists always question their conclusions, regardless of the rate at which they come to them,
as if that were in any way relevant.

 

[Colter]

The Creator invented a genetic code - and associated system for encoding, transmitting, decoding - and error-correcting such that it is beyond our technology to duplicate. And this is proof that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large and talented pile of dirt -- and a sufficiently long and talented length of time - filled with improbable just-so stories"???

please be serious!

And BTW - those bacteria have been "observed" for 50,000 generations since 1988 and they remain -- bacteria. (Observations in nature - that would simulate more than 2 million years for humans to reach 50,000 generations)

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made



Each time you come to an irrefutable post - and cannot refute it, cannot deal with the details in the post - you simply call it a "straw man" -- is this your word for "irrefutable post?"

If so - I suggest finding another word for it.

I told you many post ago that there are no transitional fossils for the simple fact that they never existed. But you don't have another point I guess. It's like you were done last month but you're still talking.

 

[ScottA]

John warned of the wrath to come, but no wrath came, just a very nice Son of God who revealed the true loving God. Indeed Johns error died.

New International Version
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

There are so many things that could be quoted to counter that absurd comment - but no need - a tree is know by its fruit.

 

[Colter]

There are so many things that could be quoted to counter that absurd comment - but no need - a tree is know by its fruit.

That's what one says when you have no rebuttal. Jesus went back to his rightful place in heaven, not David's corrupt throne.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

from: http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx
www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx
Healthline Networks
The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position.


Oh no wait! no that bone is just there for evolutionists looking for any-ol-excuse to reject the Bible so they don't have to talk about Ex 20:11.

Oh, the coccyx is so important! So essential! And yet we observe that none of the mammals have one except for those that have gone tailless. How do monkeys and dogs get along without such a useful attachment site and insertion point for muscles of the pelvic floor? Instead, they're stuck with tails.

Oh, maybe the usefulness of the coccyx is exaggerated? Maybe its usage is greatly diminished, even if it is a little bit useful still? Maybe the tail itself was evolved to be a coccyx because its better that way? Your citation of "uses" for the coccyx does not invalidate its evidence for evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes absolutely I do. I have admitted that on MANY occasions. I have evidence from which I derive an opinion. You are absolutely correct. The problem with evolutionists is they will not admit the same thing. Oh no, their evidence is proof of the facts of evolution.

And good for you if you give glory to God as Creator. However, if you accept evolution you are NOT accepting Gods word. You have a right to do that. But just keep in mind that when you do you are allowing yourself to be the judge as to what is true in the Word of God and what is not. It's not solid ground. I stand on perfectly solid footing because I believe what the word of God says. I don't try and change it to fit something else that I might have come across.

No, that isn't at all correct. It is not an issue of accepting the Bible; it is, however, an issue of accepting or rejecting fundamentalist ideology and the fundamentalist version of the Bible. Respectable a part of Christendom as fundamentalism may be, it is still a man-made religious ideology and therefore deserves to be tested out, as do all man-made ideas. I and many other theologians have tested out fundamentalism, find it doesn't work, and therefore have moved on to greener pastures. However, the SOP for the Bible Belt is that any scholar who dares disagree with the fundamentalist version of the Bible is automatically written off as a lost soul, etc.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

Genesis 1-2 is trying to tell you about God's creative power, that he is the sole creator, and that he places certain obligations upon man. It is not trying to do the biologist's or physicist's job for him.

It saddens me to have to read how many Christians, mostly in the American Bible Belt, think that they are the only ones marching in line.

 

[Colter]

The facts contained within the archeological record do not match the singular YEC event nor the Hebrews flood allegation found in the genealogical account of their blood lines used to establish their authority.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, the coccyx is so important! So essential!

Try disconnecting all the tendons and muscles from it - and see how you do.

 

[rjs330]

No, that isn't at all correct. It is not an issue of accepting the Bible; it is, however, an issue of accepting or rejecting fundamentalist ideology and the fundamentalist version of the Bible. Respectable a part of Christendom as fundamentalism may be, it is still a man-made religious ideology and therefore deserves to be tested out, as do all man-made ideas. I and many other theologians have tested out fundamentalism, find it doesn't work, and therefore have moved on to greener pastures. However, the SOP for the Bible Belt is that any scholar who dares disagree with the fundamentalist version of the Bible is automatically written off as a lost soul, etc.

The real issue here is the understanding of the word,of God. The only way to believe in evolution is to fundamentally change or twist what the word of God says. Genesis and Exodus can't be any more clear than it is. In order to make evolution work you HAVE to change the scriptures.

I don't know where you came up with the word fundamentalism and applied it to Christianity, but if you mean that if I believe what the Bible says is true then I am fundamentalist then I guess I am guilty as charged.

If you don't believe the Bible is true then what do you put your faith in? How can you believe any of it? If you don't believe the Bible is true then how can you believe in Jesus. It all could be a made up,story. Jesus might never have said "I am the way the truth and the life. No,man comes to the Father but by me." if you don't believe what the Bible says then there might not be a heaven or salvation.

If you get ro,pick and choose what you want to believe you have just placed yourself in the position of determining what truth is and what parts of the Bible are real and what parts aren't. I don't think,they a good place to,be, especially when it is CLEAR what the Bible says.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[BobRyan]

The facts contained within the archeological record do not match the singular YEC event nor the Hebrews flood allegation found in the genealogical account of their blood lines used to establish their authority.

Allow me to illustrate -- evolution "stories easy enough to make up"



"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,

Wow -- "easy enough to make up stories" for evolutionists --

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,

 

[BobRyan]

The real issue here is the understanding of the word,of God.

Hoghead1 and Colter have both stated that -- the Bible cannot be trusted because it makes statements they do not agree with.

The only way to believe in evolution is to fundamentally change or twist what the word of God says.

Not true in the case of James Barr, Darwin, Dawkins, Collter, Hoghead1 - for them simply trashing the Bible is "the other option" -- then there is no need to twist-wrench-bend it. Just let it say what it says.