Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If the Legal code of the TEN Commandments is merely God making an appeal to non-fact polemic then we have what many non Christians claim about the Bible - God Himself can't be trusted even His Law is not stating actual fact. "Six days you shall labor...for in six days the easter bunny?"

There is no legal code in scripture that is from God - that makes an appeal to myth as the established rule of law.

What? How are Biblical polemics merely myth? And yes, God can appeal to a polemic because Biblical polemic are ultimately true in their claims.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Well that's their problem. However, for us Christians that have a high view of scripture the Bible has historic fact in it but not all passages that appear to record history are historically accurate (Matthew 1).

Matthew 1 is not in the form of legal code saying "you shall have fourteen days in a week because there are fourteen generations in ..."
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What? How are Biblical polemic merely myth. And yes, God can appeal to a polemic because Biblical polemic are ultimately true in their claims.

"an appeal to a polemic" is not the same has having LAW based on polemic where the actual detail in the law "the timeline" is the most untrue thing in the polemic. There is no such thing as that in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Seriously Bob, you need to understand what the words fact and fiction mean before even hinting facts are fiction and vice versa. So far is is obvious all you want to do is deny the facts without a scientific basis. At least use real facts based on scientific research by paleontologists in your rebuttals. If you can't do it that is your problem, not mine.

I never claim "facts are fiction" -- quote something that I post that is of that form if you are going to make that claim.

How is it that when scientists like Colin Patterson - senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural history (Darwin's home turf and memorial) does not register in your response even though I have given it to you ?

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

--======================= second quote


Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

Patterson:“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."

=========================================
You will not find "True confessions" such as that by its own diehard adherents in any real branch of science .. because in the real sciences - the theories are tested "to see if" they are true.

At this point it is unclear whether you are trying to make your point or illustrate mine

included on page 1 for your enjoyment

Yesterday at 12:52 PM #11
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But the idea that legal code is allegory in Ex 20:11 ... well that is pretty interesting speculation.

the creation account becomes the framework of law as you've picked up on and it does this by design. it being literal or not doesn't change this and it is just as powerful. the bible is full of non-literal accounts and it uses them to point to powerful literal truths so I'm not sure you're point.

the law itself points to something greater than it is. A perfect example is Peter's dream because it reveals the dietary laws actually weren't about food at all so when we reverse back to the verbatim dietary law we know the law itself is only a shadow of things to come. Calling it allegory is the wrong word because the genre doesn't fit but it doesn't remove the foreshadowing or deep symbols in the law.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
How is it that when scientists like Colin Patterson - senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural history (Darwin's home turf and memorial) does not register in your response even though I have given it to you?

I told you why: Coliln Patterson is only one scientist. If thousands of paleontologitsts know evolution was, and still is, totally real through repeated testable observations, why should I believe only one man who is not on the same page?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I told you why: Coliln Patterson is only one scientist.

And I told you that the "only one" response you are giving - gets refuted by the fact that these statements are ones he makes before groups of scientists - his own peers - where in addition to having no answer from the group the one "answer" that finally did come back was "I know this - it should not be taught in high school". (That's not Patterson that is the group of his own peers he is speaking to)

in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

Patterson:“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on
the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history
I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago

Those are his peers.
And you think "that" helps your case for blind faith evolutionism? seriously?

He is a world class scientist.
British Natural History Museum has a general text on evolution - who is the author? It is Patterson.

My point is you have no example where one of the real sciences has their own world class leaders saying that about their own field of science.

You have not explained why that is the case - but keep insisting that until every evolutionist admits to what these world class scientists admit to in the case of the bogus foundation for evolution - then...hopefully...maybe... we should not be "looking behind that curtain after all"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
the creation account becomes the framework of law

True - and I am not the author of the Ten commandments - I just note "the details" in Ex 20:11

"Six days you shall labor.. for in six days the Lord made.." Ex 20:11

I note that fact because it cannot simply be dismissed as "a figure of speech" - rather the "kind of writing that it is" is legal code.

it being literal or not doesn't change this and it is just as powerful.

That only works if you have examples for legal code of the form "Six days you shall labor.. for in six days the Lord made.. but not really six days" Ex 20:11

As if "that makes no difference in the case of legal code" was ever "A thing" in all of scripture when it comes to "legal code"

the law itself points to something greater than it is. A perfect example is Peter's dream because it reveals the dietary laws actually weren't about food at all

That is not even the topic - in Acts 10 God is giving no law at all about eating rats. " all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth" - it is not an example of a rat-sandwich law as Peter explains three times in the book of Acts. It is about evangelism according to Peter and "calling no man unclean"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
Certainly we both agree that atheists would argue that none of those Bible "historic facts" are in fact real historic fact.

Well that's their problem. However, for us Christians that have a high view of scripture the Bible has historic fact in it

true.

And so far there no example at all given on this thread as legal code appealing to myth/fiction to establish law. "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made... but not really" is not a form of law in any part of scripture.

As even James Barr freely admits of all the world class experts on Hebrew language and the OT - they agree that the author is specifically pointing his readers to a real 7 day week for the creation event. there is no "not really" in the text or in any implied part of it for the readers.
 
Upvote 0

Davidz777

Newbie
Nov 23, 2012
118
26
SF Bay Area
✟10,303.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
RR, looking at your opening post, I was surprised someone would use a weak statement like your Barr quote to try an argue your literal conclusion to such a broad audience. Well unless that was bait haha. Of course I suspect you knew many would object and likely splinter the discussion into a number of unrelated issues you could then choose the weakest to confront. And that pretty much looks like what happened. Did you change anyone's mind? Of course not and you probably didn't expect to. Did any non-literalists add anything new you had not heard or read in the past. Hardly. Was it a worthwhile exercise confronting non-literalists in battle? At least you do seem to have enjoyed the exercise.
 
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

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
RR, looking at your opening post, I was surprised someone would use a weak statement like your Barr quote to try an argue your literal conclusion to such a broad audience.

And then you post some fact to back that accusation about "a weak statement" up?

or...

not.


Ok I guess the "not" has it. :)

BTW: I toss Barr's statement in the OP after a few people try the ol' "wait! wait! maybe something in the Genesis 1 Hebrew language, the kind of literature that it is, or anything I can think of at the moment - is shouting to the reader - 'don't take this literally' "

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

as for facts in your post above ...

At least you do seem to have enjoyed the exercise.

ok... that was a fact.

something we see in other forums but not this one of course is the old trick "when you can't deal with the facts confronting evolutionism - attack the messenger".

I do appreciate the fact that these discussions here do not sink to that level. Nice to have these discussions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Davidz777
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Further to this if we consider that the Nebular hypothesis fails on angular momentum and the fact that one planet is counter rotating, and the consider the actual way the Sun and planets are moving in space:

We can come to the realisation that what Moses describes here is very likely to be correct.
What Moses wrote, and what you are talking about are two different things. Your post is outside the topic of the thread.

I haven't taken any studies in astronomy but even I can see that there's something wrong with the helical model.
In the video it's shown as going in a straight line with all planets orbiting behind the sun, creating a spiral.

But.. astronomical observations over the years show that our solar system moves in a circular path which makes up the galaxy.

Further, all galaxies observed are disc shaped. None depict a spiral shape.

https://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/ said:
While it’s definitely intriguing to watch (in that mesmerizingly-repetitive gif fashion) and rendered with a talented flair for design, there are two fundamental problems with it. One: it’s not entirely correct, scientifically, and two: its creator’s intention is to illustrate a decidedly un-scientific point of view about the Solar System and the Universe as a whole.
continued universetoday said:
It isn't correct, because a vortex is not a helix, and so while the planets do trace a helical path as they move through the galaxy, this is not evidence of a vortex. Yes, the sun actually is moving through space, as it traces a path around the centre of the galaxy. The whole mass of the solar system moves with it, so the planets are not left behind as the sun moves.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,003
69
USA
✟585,394.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This thread is not about evolution as evolution is a scientific theory.

Agree, it's a thread about Genesis, the creation of life as we know it today, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What Moses wrote, and what you are talking about are two different things. Your post is outside the topic of the thread.

I haven't taken any studies in astronomy but even I can see that there's something wrong with the helical model.
In the video it's shown as going in a straight line with all planets orbiting behind the sun, creating a spiral.

But.. astronomical observations over the years show that our solar system moves in a circular path which makes up the galaxy.

Further, all galaxies observed are disc shaped. None depict a spiral shape.
Moses wrote that the Earth was created apart from the Sun.

On the nebular hypothesis of planetary formation this is not feasible.

On the nebular hypothesis the Earth is formed from debris left over from creation of the Sun and no new matter is added to the system. However we find after observation that the solar system has 98% of its mass in the Sun and yet the angular momentum of the Sun posseses is only about 2% of the momentum in the system.

The helical model shows a system where the Sun moves through the galaxy (as the galaxy spirals) and picks up planets on the way that spiral in its wake due to gravitational pull.

This model shows a solar system where planets can be added after they have been created, and where angular momentum and mass are added to the system as it grows.
 
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

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Bible isn’t a science textbook folks let’s not treat it as such. :p

Problem for that post --

1. We don't argue that because God tells us the time frame - he also tells us of the physics and chemistry of the "Details" about how he did it in the time frame he specifies.
2. Same for the resurrection of Christ. We know the event and when but not the physics or the chemistry for it.

People often post as if the first time modern man discovered that the physics details were not included in the text regarding the incarnation, the resurrection, the miracles of the Bible, the Genesis historic account - was when someone pointed out the "details" in the Bible about creation week -
 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Moses wrote that the Earth was created apart from the Sun.
Moses wrote that the earth was already in existence, allbeit under water.
Gen.1:1-3
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and void, [/quote]The words "formless and void" mean what a non-working vender-machine means.. "Out of order".

2 and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Anguspure said:
On the nebular hypothesis of planetary formation this is not feasible.
The scientific community accepts the atheistic model. To them, creation isn't feasible.
Anguspure said:
On the nebular hypothesis the Earth is formed from debris left over from creation of the Sun and no new matter is added to the system. However we find after observation that the solar system has 98% of its mass in the Sun and yet the angular momentum of the Sun posseses is only about 2% of the momentum in the system.

The helical model shows a system where the Sun moves through the galaxy (as the galaxy spirals) and picks up planets on the way that spiral in its wake due to gravitational pull.

This model shows a solar system where planets can be added after they have been created, and where angular momentum and mass are added to the system as it grows.
More detail on the helical model makes it less and less match up with the Genesis week of creation.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,307
10,594
Georgia
✟909,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
This model shows a solar system where planets can be added after they have been created, and where angular momentum and mass are added to the system as it grows.

ok - I'll play.

If the sun had showed up on day 4 and "snagged the Earth" into orbit then one would think it would have messed up the place in terms of the plants already established with the result that on days 5 and 6... no plants to eat. Or is there some physics showing that a sun passing by the Earth pulls earth into inner orbit within a 24 hour window - inside the 4th planet's orbit without causing a massive geothermal event all over the surface of the planet?

or is it that we toss out the creation account entirely "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made" Ex 20:11 -- and just settle for "over billions of years the earth was acquired by the sun after plants had already started to evolve, and in that same billion year window the Earth acquired the moon"?

I can just see the sun now... "Add to shopping cart... one Earth"
followed by the Earth "add to shopping cart...one moon"
followed by "would you like to check out?"... "got any coupons?"
and of course a "special sale" on free floating genetic material and the abiogenesis starter kit.

There are sooo many "just-so" stories in that belief system that goes all the way what Dawkings called "mount improbable"
 
Last edited:
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

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ok - I'll play.

If the sun had showed up on day 4 and "snagged the Earth" into orbit then one would think it would have messed up the place in terms of the plants already established with the result that on days 5 and 6... no plants to eat. Or is there some physics showing that a sun passing by the Earth pulls earth into inner orbit within a 24 hour window - inside the 4th planet's orbit without causing a massive geothermal event all over the surface of the planet?

or is it that we toss out the creation account entirely "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made" Ex 20:11 -- and just settle for "over billions of years the earth was acquired by the sun after plants had already started to evolve"?
As is indicated in the Bible as a future state, the Creator supplies the light necessary with His presence during the time of creation and until the Sun is brought into play.

I am of the opinion that although from the Creators perspective the Earth was created in 6 days, that the perspective of long ages and design progression and development from the perspective of an observer within the system are accurate.

This article is informative: Age of the Universe

"One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubble telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.....

.....The calculations come out to be as follows:

• The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

• The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

• The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

• The fourth 24 hour day ― one billion years.

• The fifth 24 hour day ― one-half billion years.

• The sixth 24 hour day ― one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine." Dr Gerald Schroeder

So the period for which the Earth needed the Creators light is probably a billion years or so, not 1 Solar day (a time frame which didn't exist until the planet was in orbit around the Sun anyway).
 
Upvote 0