proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

Exactly, God was the designer.

Why is it not sufficient that He is the creator?

 

[rjs330]

This is getting really weird. Don't you believe any of those things? What kind of Christian are you? Do you believe the Resurrection was all made up, too?

I am challenging you! You have to know that I believe in all of that since I believe in Genesis. Why on Earth would I believe in Genesis and the account and accuracy of that but then disbelieve in the ressurrection? You see I am entirely consistant.

You still haven't answered my questions. Paul and you got your understanding of God salvation, the coming of the Messiah, sin etc all from the OT. A collection of books that you call stories and allegory. The new Testament are also a collection of books written by men that also contain stories. Yet we believe those stories to be accurate. Why? What makes them any more accurate than any other story in the Bible? And you didn't answer my question regarding Samuel and David. Did that happen or not? And how do you know?

And since Paul is so revered how can you really trust him to know the truth when he obviously doesn't know that the OT is allegorical and not accurate. Perhaps he is mistaken about a great many things.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not at all. Why? Because something never comes from nothing. Ever. There is always a creator. There is always a designer for everything. Snow skis did not just evolve into airplanes. Someone designed them and someone installed them. Eyes do not just appear onto creatures. Someone designed them and installed them into the genetic make up.

Sure, products are designed and manufactured, no argument there.

I have yet to see something created by magic though, or being "spoken" into existence, or anything defying the natural laws of the universe for that matter.

You accept adaptation and variation within species do you not? Why is it such a huge leap of the imagination to suppose that over long periods of time adaptations can occur to those adapted creatures and so on and so on until it bares little resemblance to it's ancestors?

It's not that hard to believe surely?

Especially when your alternative is a magical deity who's existence can't be demonstrated, who's actions leave no physical trace and who's methods are actually impossible according to everything we know about the universe.

 

[rjs330]

Wait! I'm beginning to get an idea. You may have answered my perennial question about creationists after all. It's still pretty vague in my mind, maybe you can help me with it:

You start with a book you believe to be self-authenticating, and your belief in the Christian faith comes from that self-authenticating book.

And that is why you feel threatened by anyone who impeaches what you see as the self-authenticating properties of the book.

help me out here--is that even close?

If the bible is inspired then yes it is self authenticating since God is the inspirerer and he does not lie. Your faith is too based upon those scriptures. For what you know of God, sin, salvation and faith you learned from those scriptures. It is the final authority. Not me not you nor any other teacher in the church. Otherwise, and we have seen this played out over church history, any one man can claim the authority. And many times we have had more than one claim the authority. How do we know which one is right and which one to follow? Test what they are teaching by the word. Paul and Peter did that. They used Scripture as the base for what they were teaching. Jesus taught from the scripture.

What does the Bible say? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. You did not get your faith in Christ based upon some made up stuff some guy said. You got your faith from believing something someone taught you from the scriptures.

 

[rjs330]

Sure, products are designed and manufactured, no argument there.

I have yet to see something created by magic though, or being "spoken" into existence, or anything defying the natural laws of the universe for that matter.

You accept adaptation and variation within species do you not? Why is it such a huge leap of the imagination to suppose that over long periods of time adaptations can occur to those adapted creatures and so on and so on until it bares little resemblance to it's ancestors?

It's not that hard to believe surely?

Especially when your alternative is a magical deity who's existence can't be demonstrated, who's actions leave no physical trace and who's methods are actually impossible according to everything we know about the universe.

And you also have yet to see something evolve from the common ancestor. You have yet to see some common ancestor split into spiders from whatever it was before that and then continue to to evolve into two separate things. You have never seen dogs (k9s) be anything but dogs or cats be anything but cats. Yet you still believe that all things great and small came from common ancestor. That one thing magically transformed into everything there is.

Surley its not that great a leap to see all the complexity of life and realize there was a designer behind it all.

 

[Speedwell]

That is all very interesting. I am on the verge of being late for work but I don't want to let go of this conversation because, as I say, I feel that you may have answered my perplexity about creationists and their peculiar notions about scripture.

 

[rjs330]

?

You still haven't answered my questions. Paul and you got your understanding of God salvation, the coming of the Messiah, sin etc all from the OT.

The Traditional Christian belief is that Paul had a personal vision of Christ. Otherwise his understanidng of the OT would have been much the same as any other Jew of his time. There is no evidence whatever that the Jews believed that Genesis needed to 100% accurate literal history or their whole faith was wrong. False. I don't call the OT any suh thing. Much of it is obviously historical narrative. The new Testament are also a collection of books written by men that also contain stories. Yet we believe those stories to be accurate. [/quote]
Do we? I believe them to be true and authoritative.[/QUOTE]

The consistency is mine my friend. I believe it all as it states. It is up to you to show how and why you determine to believe the accuracy of some of it, but not other parts. How do you determine that Paul's conversion story is accurate, and the other historical parts of the OT are, but others are not? Why do you believe authority and not accuracy?

 

[Jimmy D]

And you also have yet to see something evolve from the common ancestor. You have yet to see some common ancestor split into spiders from whatever it was before that and then continue to to evolve into two separate things. You have never seen dogs (k9s) be anything but dogs or cats be anything but cats. Yet you still believe that all things great and small came from common ancestor. That one thing magically transformed into everything there is.

Correct, I'm yet to "see" those things, unless I live for a couple of million years I don't expect to.

Can we not examine evidence and come to conclusions about what happened in the past?

Can we not apply current observations of nature and to the past?

Are you of the opinion that unless there is an eye witness to an event that no one can know what happened?

 

[Jimmy D]

The consistency is mine my friend. I believe it all as it states.

You believe the females of our species were "created" from a male rib as an afterthought?

That's something I've never observed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why on Earth would I believe in Genesis and the account and accuracy of that but then disbelieve in the ressurrection?

Might be the case if you were Jewish. Which I know you aren't, but I felt like saying that.

You still haven't answered my questions. Paul and you got your understanding of God salvation, the coming of the Messiah, sin etc all from the OT. A collection of books that you call stories and allegory. The new Testament are also a collection of books written by men that also contain stories. Yet we believe those stories to be accurate. Why? What makes them any more accurate than any other story in the Bible? And you didn't answer my question regarding Samuel and David. Did that happen or not? And how do you know?

Not a believer, as you know, but the general argument I've seen for why the OT is generally allegory and the NT isn't is due to sentence structure and linguistic choices. That is, the OT uses a lot more symbolic language than the NT does, even to the point that most of the named people in the OT have names which are a reference to traits they have... or are straight up puns. It's pretty unlikely that actual people would have names that convenient, don't you think?

 

[Speedwell]

The consistency is mine my friend. I believe it all as it states. It is up to you to show how and why you determine to believe the accuracy of some of it, but not other parts. How do you determine that Paul's conversion story is accurate, and the other historical parts of the OT are, but others are not? Why do you believe authority and not accuracy?

Because evidently I define "accuracy" entirely differently than you do. But back to the question at hand:

It appears to me (and I hope you will correct me if I'm wrong--this is strange new country to me) that to you the Bible proves the truth of itself, and it is on this self-evident truth that you hang your faith. Further, that the authority of the Bible does not rest on it's divine provenance, but on its self-evident objective truth which is what proves its divine provenance to you. Am I even close?

 

[Aman777]

A very predictable answer but very sad.
Where do you get the idea that God in any form wrote anything.

Because God told us:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

AND only God could have possibly authored Genesis chapter one which is the complete History of His 6 Creative Days. He revealed Himself by telling us things which can ONLY be understood in the light of modern Science in the last days of this world. Daniel 12:4

 

[Speedwell]

Because God told us:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I believe Peter, "...holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Do you know what "spake" means? It is an antique form of the past tense of the verb to speak.

It doesn't mean "they wrote down."
It does't mean "God wrote down."
It means they spoke. They uttered words with their mouths.

If you are still in any doubt about it, we can go to the underlying Greek to see if anything in that verse can be construed as asserting that God wrote the Bible.

But having done that already, I would have to say I think you're out of luck.

 

[Aman777]

I believe Peter, "...holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Do you know what "spake" means? It is an antique form of the past tense of the verb to speak.

It doesn't mean "they wrote down."
It does't mean "God wrote down."
It means they spoke. They uttered words with their mouths.

If you are still in any doubt about it, we can go to the underlying Greek to see if anything in that verse can be construed as asserting that God wrote the Bible.

But having done that already, I would have to say I think you're out of luck.

False, since holy men spake/spoke what God the Holy Spirit told them from inside them. They also wrote it down. ONLY God knew the advanced Science which AGREES in every way with every discovery of mankind. It's proof of the Literal God to those who are NOT perishing. It's not me who is out of luck. Amen?

 

[Speedwell]

False, since holy men spake/spoke what God the Holy Spirit told them from inside them. They also wrote it down.

So we agree that the passage tells us that ancienty holy men spoke as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Where in that passage does Peter assert that they also wrote it down?

Moreover, you assert that the passage proves that God wrote the entire Bible. No, I still think it is you who are out of luck with that. By any reading, in English or Greek, the passage doesn't even hint at such a thing, much less does it prove it.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

Because God told us:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

AND only God could have possibly authored Genesis chapter one which is the complete History of His 6 Creative Days. He revealed Himself by telling us things which can ONLY be understood in the light of modern Science in the last days of this world. Daniel 12:4

Nonsense and wishful thinking is the only legitimate way to those views.

 

[Speedwell]

Nonsense and wishful thinking is the only legitimate way to those views.

From my standpoint I hate to see fellow Christians fielding such fatuous arguments; it is a discredit to the Christian faith.

 

[rjs330]

Correct, I'm yet to "see" those things, unless I live for a couple of million years I don't expect to.

Can we not examine evidence and come to conclusions about what happened in the past?

Can we not apply current observations of nature and to the past?

Are you of the opinion that unless there is an eye witness to an event that no one can know what happened?

Yes evidence can be examined. But when it comes to evolution evidence is interpretive. It is not definitive. Evidence has to be testable and reproducible in order to be accurate. Current observations does not show the accuracy of common ancestry.

 

[rjs330]

I believe Peter, "...holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Do you know what "spake" means? It is an antique form of the past tense of the verb to speak.

It doesn't mean "they wrote down."
It does't mean "God wrote down."
It means they spoke. They uttered words with their mouths.

If you are still in any doubt about it, we can go to the underlying Greek to see if anything in that verse can be construed as asserting that God wrote the Bible.

But having done that already, I would have to say I think you're out of luck.

How do you know what the Holy Men spoke?

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know what the Holy Men spoke?

That is a separate question which is not addressed, as far as I can see, by II Peter 1:21.

I believe that's what they spoke, more or less, because of the accounts in Scripture.

But keep in mind, that is not the question we are addressing, but the narrower issue of whether II Peter 1:21 asserts that God wrote the Bible. That is the claim being made.