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

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
1st Timothy states "All Scripture is God breathed...." So I guess now you know of two texts laying claim to being dictated by the God of Abraham.

FYI, The Quran was written a couple of thousand of years AFTER the OT.

God bless you.

In Christ, GB

Actually isn't it 2 Timothy? And to put it all into context.

2 Timothy 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV): Yeah, like AV, I prefer the KJV, but not for the same reasons.

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Also GB, keep in mind that it says "all scripture", not the bible, which came much much later and was heavily debated (i.e. Nicaean Councils) what was and what was not scripture, as well as Church Doctrine.
 
Upvote 0
G

good brother

Guest
But you (and most creationists) conveniently OMIT the fact that that SAME TORAH portion of your Bible says that the same "rest on the 7th" pattern applies to the SABBATH YEAR (the 7th year) and the JUBILEE YEAR (a special sabbath year every 7x7=49 years!)

Why didn't you emphasize the sabbath YEAR and sabbath 7x7 YEAR (Jubilee Sabbath year every 49 years) just as much as you did the 7th DAY? (Not very honest of you, Good Brother!)

Let me say it more simply, you admitted that the Bible says:

1) Work six days and rest the seventh day.

2) But you omitted "work six YEARS and rest the seventh year".

3) And you omitted "work SEVEN weeks of years and observe rest in the JUBILEE SABBATICAL YEAR.

Good Brother, you are a SLY ONE! Lots of talk about "7th day" but not "7th year" or "7 weeks of years" for sabbatical rests on the 7th time period!

Or are you going to keep a straight face while telling us that the SEVENTH YEAR and SEVENTH WEEK OF YEARS are *not* based upon the Genesis 1 pattern of 6+1=7 that produced the sabbath day observance???

===> It is EXACTLY this kind of selective evidence and dishonesty that led me out of YEC movement as I learned more about what the Bible ACTUALLY STATES.
The only one being dishonest here is you. You are the one attempting to be cunning.

Of course they are based on the PATTERN, but it is only a pattern. You must recognize it's a pattern. But what is it a pattern of what? Well, according to Genesis it was six YOM and a seventh. But the CONTEXT defines the CONTENT. The content of Genesis says it was a set of lengths of YOMs, whatever length that may be. Of course you deny the part about the evening and morning part being definitive terms, in fact you go so far as to REDEFINE the definitive phrases to be far more vague than what they appear in the text so that you can keep your idea of not knowing how long each YOM was. However, when we look at Exodus 20 we see that whatever the ORIGINAL pattern was was to be repeated as God said we are to follow it for OUR work week just like HIS work week. And the SAME word (YOM) is used in both places so we must reason that they (both the YOM in Genesis and the YOM in Exodus) mean the exact same thing.

And another thing, I don't recall seeing "7 years or 7weeks of years" anywhere in Exodus 20. Perhaps you could quote the verse those are found in in chapter 20? Thanks.

[And Good Brother, yesterday I posted a very long and detailed presentation of ALL of your YOM=24-hr-day tradition claims and you provided no response. I know that you have nothing but your traditions to depend upon and you do NOT want to discuss the text of the Hebrew Bible that determines these issues. But don't pretend that you are being anything but disingenuous in your very SELECTIVE disclosure of what the Bible says about the 6+1=7 pattern that is expressed in SEVEN YEARS and SEVEN TIMES SEVEN YEARS as well as SEVEN DAYS!]
Then you certainly won't mind showing me where God compares seven years or seven weeks of years DIRECTLY to Genesis 1.


(HINT: And don't humiliate yourself by following up with the lame claim that there is some grammatical rule that says just because you can find a Hebrew scripture that uses YOM for "24 hour day", that rules out all other definitions for YOM which also appear in the the ancient literature. You are deep over your head and you know it.)
Context defines everything. You know that, and if you don't, you should.


(2nd TIP: And don't play "the evening and the morning was the nth YOM" game. Evening through morning is a "start to finish" idiom....and it defines one NIGHT, not a 24hour day! So don't embarrass yourself by posting it again and again in these forums and then ignorning my rebuttal of it. I'm tired of the dishonesty of pretending that I haven't address those bogus arguments many times.)
Your "rebuttals" holds no weight when compared to what God says in His word.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟18,146.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your "rebuttals" holds no weight when compared to what God says in His word.

Yes, it is the ever popular, always-traditional, "If you disagree with me about what the Bible says, it doesn't matter because God is on my side!"

And Good Brother, if you can't find the sabbatical year and Jubilee year passages of the Torah Law, I've told you before: get yourself a Bible concordance OR simply learn to use the Google search engine. You always want me to do your Bible tutoring for you. I realize that these concepts are new to you but trust me: type "sabbath year" or "sabbatical year" or "Jubilee year" together with the word "Bible" into Google and you will have enough tutoring material to keep you off the streets for many many YOMs!

(And if you ever get to the point where you are open to learning about the Bible, research how both ancient and modern Hebrews define a 24hour day. No, it is not evening through morning. It runs from sunset to sunset!)

Tradition may be comforting to you. But eventually you should investigate what the Bible actually states in the Hebrew text. Even if you are afraid to venture into other Hebrew language literature of ancient times, the TANAKH itself (that is, the Old Testament in Hebrew) uses the word YOM for meanings besides 24-hour day.) Yes, shaking loose from tradition can be scarey---especially when you are likely to be shunned by your peers. But which is more important: peer acceptance or what God's Bible actually says?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
You seem to consume a lot of salt. Better watch your blood pressure. ;)

In the world of chemistry there are many salts. To which do you make reference? :cool:

Oops! I thought I was responding to AV's, grain of salt comment. My bad.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
In the world of chemistry there are many salts. To which do you make reference? :cool:

Oops! I thought I was responding to AV's, grain of salt comment. My bad.

Good point. I'm assuming that he is using standard table salt when he disagrees with one of our statements. I hadn't thought to ask. ;)

Edit: Ah, gotcha.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟18,146.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A Question for Good Brother:

Good Brother, you've been insisting upon your traditions throughout, and even insist that the clear statements of the Hebrew Old Testament which I've explained to you must be wrong because, supposedly, God is on your side. But tell me honestly:

Good Brother, if you were to accept and admit any of the Hebrew exegesis I've explained to you about Genesis 1 and the Torah in general, and admitted that Genesis does not state the earth is a mere thousands of years old and that it doesn't deny evolutionary processes, would you be able to keep your job as a youth pastor?

Would you lose your job if you even admitted that what I explained to you is true and that though Genesis 1 describes a six YOM creation, we do NOT know the exact meaning of YOM in that context nor that the universe was "created in six 24-hour days"?
(I even wonder if your church would allow you to tell your young people that there may have been vast periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?)

Good Brother, be honest with us and tell us: Would you even be able to publicly state, "I don't know." on any of these issues without losing your job as a pastor? Are you even at liberty to honestly say, "The Bible is not entirely clear about some of these origins issues." Are you allowed to admit, "Nowhere in the Bible does it state the age of the earth---and even if we can date Adam, that wouldn't give us the age of the universe."

[Even if Good Brother's church employer DOES allow some leeway on "permitted thinking" about Genesis, a great many creationist churches do not. I have personally served on Christian school university and seminary faculties where any statement allowing for the theory of evolution to be true or even allowing for an earth older than perhaps 20,000 years could get you fired IMMEDIATELY. And unlike secular universities, even if tenure EXISTS at a particular Christian school, it provides meaningless job security if you dare think "wrong thoughts" about science---even if you are a Biblical theology professor. Ben Stein's EXPELLED movie was a joke because it was also extremely hypocritical. He made no effort to explore the many cases of Christians being fired for even thinking "wrong thoughts." It doesn't even matter if they were also taught.]

Personally, when somebody pontificates on what the Bible MUST be saying but they work for a church or school which would FIRE THEM IMMEDIATELY if they conceded even the smallest point of the debate, I find such a debate rather futile. Indeed, I have personally taken part in public debates on origins issues where a participant later admitted that they agreed with me (or were at least open on some issue) but that they couldn't admit it without immediate job loss. For example, Dr. Bruce Waltke lost his elite academic post within HOURS of making a controversial statement about creationism in a video. (Another graduate school hired him within a few more hours, but not all of my colleagues were so fortunate.)

It is very difficult to debate intelligently anyone whose deviation from "the party line" puts them in jeopardy with their Christian church or school employer. Right, Good Brother?!

Creationists complain about "academic freedom" but I can say from a lifetime as a professor at both Christian and secular universities, censorship and "thought control" is FAR MORE SEVERE AND DISCRIMINATORY at many Christian schools than what I have EVER seen at secular, government-funded universities. (And I say that after personally teaching at major universities in the USA and UK.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Good point. I'm assuming that he is using standard table salt when he disagrees with one of our statements. I hadn't thought to ask. ;)

CaCl (sea salt) is much more friendly than the standard NaCl. I have both in my home but seldom think to use the calcium salt, which is the I should be using since I do have to take BP medication.
 
Upvote 0
S

Skarl

Guest
CaCl (sea salt) is much more friendly than the standard NaCl. I have both in my home but seldom think to use the calcium salt, which is the I should be using since I do have to take BP medication.

Sea salt is calcium chloride? How have I never heard that before? That's kinda cool.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
CaCl (sea salt) is much more friendly than the standard NaCl. I have both in my home but seldom think to use the calcium salt, which is the I should be using since I do have to take BP medication.

Yeah. I don't have to take my medicine anymore, since my weightloss, but I do try to limit my salt intake by eating as little processed food as I can, and not adding any salt to my dishes.

Kind of hard, though, since I live with my brother, and he salts EVERYTHING, and is usually the cook.

I'll look into getting the CaCl next time we go grocery shopping.
 
Upvote 0

Mr. Pedantic

Newbie
Jul 13, 2011
1,257
33
Auckland
✟9,178.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
CaCl (sea salt) is much more friendly than the standard NaCl. I have both in my home but seldom think to use the calcium salt, which is the I should be using since I do have to take BP medication.

You do know that the predominant cation in seawater is sodium, right?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
You do know that the predominant cation in seawater is sodium, right?

I've always been told that it (sea salt) was a calcium salt, but now that I look at the package I see that it is mostly still a sodium salt. I stand corrected. :)

And yes I did know that Na+ is the predominant cation in sea water.
 
Upvote 0

Mr. Pedantic

Newbie
Jul 13, 2011
1,257
33
Auckland
✟9,178.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I've always been told that it (sea salt) was a calcium salt, but now that I look at the package I see that it is mostly still a sodium salt. I stand corrected. :)

And yes I did know that Na+ is the predominant cation in sea water.

There are special salts out there that have predominantly CaCl instead of NaCl, and they are generally better physiologically for hypertension than NaCl (I don't know, however, the long-term effects of such high consumption of calcium, since that acts on the cardiovascular system as well). The only problem is that they are much more expensive than normal salts, simply because there is so much more sodium than calcium in the sea.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Good Brother, you've been insisting upon your traditions throughout, and even insist that the clear statements of the Hebrew Old Testament which I've explained to you must be wrong because, supposedly, God is on your side.
Hey, professor of paraphraseology, peruse your profile please.

This is what's in it:

Fav. Books

Tanakh, Novum Testamentum
DBAG Greek Lexicon

You might want to fix that DBAG to BDAG ... (someone might think you meant Dirt Bag Greek Lexicon).

We certainly wouldn't want a translator to make an error in transposition, would we? ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟18,146.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
AV JUST CAN'T GET HIS "FACTS" STRAIGHT!

(Sorry, AV. You try SO hard to find some error to "correct". And then it blows up in your face.)


You might want to fix that DBAG to BDAG ... (someone might think you meant Dirt Bag Greek Lexicon).

We certainly wouldn't want a translator to make an error in transposition, would we? ;)

AV, your ignorance of basic Bible facts betrays you yet again---even while jumping up and down thinking that you finally found a typo in my post.


The "typo" was only in your own imagination. You have no idea what the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrinch revision involved and how it relates to DBAG. Both DBAG and BDAG are standard reference designations among Biblical scholars and even beginning Bible college students. The names represent variations editions/revisions of the classic New Testament Greek lexicon.

AV wouldn't know a professional lexicographer even if he walked up and hit AV over the head with BOTH a DBAG lexicon and a BDAG lexicon----or even a series of HALOT volumes.

Despite AV's blunder, Biblical Studies professionals/academics nowadays rarely use the outdated BDAG. (Unlike you, we don't rely upon reference editions from over a century ago just because we have to go back that far to find someone to agree with us. For us to still use BDAG wouldn't be as pitiful as AV continuing to use a 1890 Strong's Lexicon for serious scholarly work but it would still expose AV's naivete.

When Fred Danker revised the Bauer Lexicon in the latest edition, his initial was moved to the front of the abbreviation. So what was once known only as the Bauer Greek New Testament Lexicon (published in German), which was later translated by Arndt and Gingrich into English, with the more recent revised editions done by Dr. Danker, now gives primary attribution to Dr. Danker.

So, AV1611VET, if you still think, "You might want to fix that DBAG to BDAG.", tell me this: Why would I want to throw aside my newer DBAG lexicon and replace it with the old BDAG edition which Fred Danker edited years ago? I worked with Dr. Danker for decades and as he completed his work he was quite excited about all of the new data which he was able to incorporate into his revised DBAG edition that simply wasn't possible when he did BDAG.

But on the other hand, AV has always insisted that "Evidence can take a hike!" and "Lexicons can take a hike!", so I can certainly see why AV wouldn't want me to be using the latest edition of a Greek New Testament lexicon that incorporates the most and best evidence!


So, AV, I think it is quite safe to say that YOU are the only person who would ever think that DBAG was a standard abbreviation for "Dirt Bag Greek Lexicon." But I do agree with the Book of Proverbs when it says that the fool likes to mock instruction and understanding---and even denigrate the Biblical lexicography work of fine men like Dr. Danker who certainly deserved the recognition which the BDAG to BAGD to DBAG designations indicate.

But I'm curious: Do you ever consider taking the time to RESEARCH the facts before posting such silly blunders? (You could think of it as the posting equivalent of thinking before you speak.) It would spare you repeatedly embarrassing yourself in this manner. After all, few things make you look more ridiculous than getting all excited thinking that you finally found a TYPO in a professor's post and then having to learn that it was YOU who was yet again ignorant of the basic facts of the matter. (Are you really TRYING so very hard to make your credibility as minimal as possible? With you, it is virtually an art form. Indeed, you make it look easy.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Both DBAG and BDAG are standard reference designations among Biblical scholars and even beginning Bible college students. The names represent variations editions/revisions of the classic New Testament Greek lexicon.)
Oops! Sorry about that! My bad! ;)
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Incorrect.

My belief ... (at the risk of correcting you, which I've supposedly never done before) ... is that the original autographs from Genesis 1 to the Tower of Babel were written in English.

In other words, Adam wrote Genesis 1 & 2 in English; Seth wrote Genesis 3 & 4 in English; Noah wrote Genesis 5-9 in English; Shem wrote Genesis 10 in English; then Abraham wrote Genesis 11-25 in Hebrew.

Moses then edited the entire book of Genesis (into Hebrew), and that's why Genesis is titled, The First Book of Moses.

(Something like that.)

This would be heiferdust. Why would you assume that English would be Adam's language?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why would you assume that English would be Adam's language?
Because I believe the "books" in...

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

... are the 66 books of the King James Bible.

This means I believe they will speak [divine] Jacobean in Heaven, where the Babel Effect doesn't apply.

Just out of curiosity, what language do you assume Adam spoke?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟18,146.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Because I believe the "books" in...

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

... are the 66 books of the King James Bible.

1) But you've simply pushed the question back a step. WHY do you believe Revelation 20:12 refers to the KJV Bible which wouldn't be produced for another 1500+ years???? Also, why do you deviate from the usual interpretation that RV 20:12 refers to the salvation status of people and the WORKS they did in their lifetimes upon which they are judged?

2) More importantly, the King James Bible of 1611 consisted of 80 books, not 66!

3) Of course, this illustrates yet again that AV has little actually regard for a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible. Otherwise he would not so casually insert arbitrary imaginations and anachronisms into the Biblical text. Even he knows that no rational person will take him seriously when he insists that English existed as a language many centuries before the forces that molded it. The Latin influence on English came mainly with the Battle of Hastings of 1066 when the Norman Invasion forced French language influences upon the prior Germanic language elements---which in turn came centuries before with the Anglo-Saxon invasion and migrations from Germany! Yet, somehow, of all of the many languages (and language periods) on planet earth, 16th century English is for some strange reason of a special significance of all of them? No, not even AV believes ANY of this nonsense. He's simply mocking the Bible.

.
My theory remains that AV simply comes up with bizarre claims in order to get attention---and it usually works. (Just like his Noah's ark pine pitch came from New Jersey story.)

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0