a challenge for creationists

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader

Okay, this a new one. So one can stop becoming a Christian? So then, salvation can be lost? I thought you were Protestant.

I personally do not believe one can lose salvation, but it has nothing to do with being protestant. Some protestants believe you can lose your salvation (I could be wrong, but I think many Lutherans believe this, which is a bit ironic, since Luther started the protestant reformation). Their belief is usually based on text from Hebrews 6. If you want to discuss these verses another forum/thread would be more appropriate.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley




Now please explain to us how this is actually allegory for, "But a few billion years after creation they evolved into humans who were male and female...."

Why not? Jesus didn't say "instantly," did he? He didn't say how long. Why couldn't it be an allegory?

In another thread, someone pointed out a verse about the earth being "immobile." Would you agree that that's allegorical?

 

[Athlon4all]

Agreed npetreley.

How can you stop becoming something you never were?

You know what I meant

As for the Bible being written by man:II Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by blader


"All scientists?" Even the Christian ones?

What about your person beliefs? If you think the Bible is to be interpreted 100% literally, then where does that put you? If some one shows you evidence for evolution that contradicts the Bible, what would you do? That's right, the same thing you're doing now: ignore it, because you've already decide that it's just an evil evolutionist lie from Satan. Talk about unscientific.

History has recorded a number of incidents in which various religious leaders have mistranslated, misinterpreted or misstated what the Bible says, or in which they have embellished scripture with their own ideas and interpretations--and then have punished scientists, researchers, or even other biblical scholars who had the audicity to say or print something that was contrary to their bias. The converse is also true: History has also recorded a number of incidents in which biblical scripture has been ridiculed by scientists and philosophers because they thought their modern theories and discoveries had shown the Bible to be in error--only to be later proven to be incorrect themselves as new scientific discoveries confirmed what the Bible said.

If God created the universe and if the universe gives true testimony of God's creation (both of which are supported by biblical scripture), and if the Bible is true and is the inspired word of God (as it also asserts), then perhaps any discrepency between the two accounts might possibly indicate that we either do not have all the answers yet regarding the creation--or that we have not correctly interpreted the scripture--or some combination of both....

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
Agreed npetreley.You know what I meant

As for the Bible being written by man:II Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Well, you should know who I think wrote that sentence. And it ain't God.

Oh yeah. Where in the Bible does it say what "Scripture" is defined as anyway? Does the Bible say "The Books of John, Paul, Romans are all Scripture divinely inspired by God?" If so, where? Did the guy writing "Timothy II" (presumably Timothy) know he was writing "Scripture"? Please show scriptural proof.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Sinai



If God created the universe and if the universe gives true testimony of God's creation (both of which are supported by biblical scripture), and if the Bible is true and is the inspired word of God (as it also asserts), then perhaps any discrepency between the two accounts might possibly indicate that we either do not have all the answers yet regarding the creation--or that we have not correctly interpreted the scripture--or some combination of both....

Well said Sinai. It could certainly be both. Its the people who think their intepretation of the Bible is as true as the Bible itself that bothers me.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by blader:


I find a theistic evolutionist much much convincing in witnessing than a Creationist. A theistic evolutionist tells me that the man does not deny what he sees. A Creationist just tells me that the man chooses not to see.

I suspect you mean young earth creationist. Most Christians and Jews are creationists, since they believe that God created the universe, our world, and life--but only the YECies think the beginning of the universe, matter and time was only about 6-12 thousand years ago.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by blader:


Well, you should know who I think wrote that sentence. And it ain't God.

Oh yeah. Where in the Bible does it say what "Scripture" is defined as anyway? Does the Bible say "The Books of John, Paul, Romans are all Scripture divinely inspired by God?" If so, where? Did the guy writing "Timothy II" (presumably Timothy) know he was writing "Scripture"? Please show scriptural proof.

At the time Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, the "scriptures" would have probably been just the Old Testament, although some portions of what now comprises the New Testament would also have been written and would have been in the process of being circulated. The phrase "given by inspiration of God" is one word in the Greek--theopneustros--which means "God-breathed." The idea is that God inspired the men as to what to write, though you will find various interpretations as to precisely to what extent the inspiration was directed.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Sinai


I suspect you mean young earth creationist. Most Christians and Jews are creationists, since they believe that God created the universe, our world, and life--but only the YECies think the beginning of the universe, matter and time was only about 6-12 thousand years ago.

Yes, certainly. I was using "Creationist" using its most popular, er, usage. YECers it is.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Sinai


At the time Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, the "scriptures" would have probably been just the Old Testament, although some portions of what now comprises the New Testament would also have been written and would have been in the process of being circulated. The phrase "given by inspiration of God" is one word in the Greek--theopneustros--which means "God-breathed." The idea is that God inspired the men as to what to write, though you will find various interpretations as to precisely to what extent the inspiration was directed.

Thanks. I suspected as much. This is why I asked the question, since it doesn't make sense to claim the Timothy II passage as "proof" of the divinity of the entire Bible when much of the NT itself wasn't even defined as "Scripture" when it was written... and that's neglecting the circular logic behind the argument in question.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by blader


Well said Sinai. It could certainly be both. Its the people who think their intepretation of the Bible is as true as the Bible itself that bothers me.

Well said.  It bothers me, too.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader


Why not? Jesus didn't say "instantly," did he? He didn't say how long. Why couldn't it be an allegory?

In another thread, someone pointed out a verse about the earth being "immobile." Would you agree that that's allegorical?

I don't think you know what allegory means.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


I don't think you know what allegory means.

I am 99.8% confident that my vocabulary is better than yours, if my SAT verbal score is any guide.


al·le·go·ry (l-gôr, -gr)
n. pl. al·le·go·ries

1.
1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
2. A symbolic representation:

... either of which is exactly the meaning I intended to convey.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sinai

At the time Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, the "scriptures" would have probably been just the Old Testament, although some portions of what now comprises the New Testament would also have been written and would have been in the process of being circulated. The phrase "given by inspiration of God" is one word in the Greek--theopneustros--which means "God-breathed." The idea is that God inspired the men as to what to write, though you will find various interpretations as to precisely to what extent the inspiration was directed.

Whether or not Paul was referring to the OT is irrelevant to the point being made. (I think he was only referring to the OT at the time, by the way.) Scripture is scripture. And all scripture -- including the NT -- is G~d-breathed.

By the way, Peter obviously regarded Paul's letters as being as inspired as scripture...

2 Peter 3
16 As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by blader


Thanks. I suspected as much. This is why I asked the question, since it doesn't make sense to claim the Timothy II passage as "proof" of the divinity of the entire Bible when much of the NT itself wasn't even defined as "Scripture" when it was written... and that's neglecting the circular logic behind the argument in question.

I understand that problem.  This is my take right now on the proper view of that passage.

I believe in a progression of revelation. This was mostly to accomodate the developing minds of mankind and their changing cultures.  The ancient Israelites thought differently about literature and history than we do.  The first traces of our modern occidental mindset were carried into our religion through the Greek and Roman empires.  Therefore, the New Testament was written with many of our concerns about scientific accuracy and the like, so that the truth the NT contains becomes more comprehensible to our modern minds than the OT.

Moreover, 2 Tim. 3:15 (it's called "context," folks - look it up) mentions the "holy scriptures."  Interesting thing is, the word Paul uses for "holy," hierous had been practically abandoned by the early Christians because it carried cultic connotations in favor of the broader term hagios.  That's why I think that the "holy scriptures" Paul was referring to in verse 16 were righteous in the realm of Jewish ritual, i.e., Law-related.  Thus Paul was expressing to Timothy that even though he himself had been hard on the Law on many points of doctrine, it was still of very practical use, because it had been handed down by God.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader

I am 99.8% confident that my vocabulary is better than yours, if my SAT verbal score is any guide.

What is it with you evolutionists who think arguments are won by flashing credentials?

Originally posted by blader

al·le·go·ry (l-gôr, -gr)
n. pl. al·le·go·ries

1.
1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
2. A symbolic representation:

... either of which is exactly the meaning I intended to convey.

Well, either you DO know what allegory means, or you know how to look it up. So to what is your allegorical interpretation of what Jesus said, then?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Every time the word "scripture" appears in the NT, it is a translation of the word graphe, which is the very same word for "a writing." It's up to context whether we infer that it's referring to what we call "the scriptures" (from the Latin for "writings") Peter simply said "the writings of Paul."

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


What is it with you evolutionists who think arguments are won by flashing credentials?

What is it with you Creationists who think arguments are won by questioning your opponent's vocabulary?

"I don't think you know what allegory means."

In this case, the flashing of credentials proves your assumption to be rather ridiculous.

Well, either you DO know what allegory means, or you know how to look it up.

"Allegory" is not exactly an SAT word. An eigth grader should know what it means. Which makes your original assumption the more ridiculous.

So to what is your allegorical interpretation of what Jesus said, then?

First, my own allegorical interpretation is irrelevant, since I'm not a Christian. However, I'll provide you one for the sake of humouring you:

What Jesus said is allegorical to the Creation of the first humans, that he created the first of the species homo sapiens male and female. "Beginning of creation" refers to the creation of human beings, not the very beginning. This should be obvious, because human beings weren't created on the first "day"(... which is actually Hebrew for "age").

Second, you didn't answer my question. What made you think I didn't know what allegory means?

Third, you also ignored the point about the earth being held immobile. Do you interpret that literally then? The earth doesn't move?

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


Whether or not Paul was referring to the OT is irrelevant to the point being made. (I think he was only referring to the OT at the time, by the way.) Scripture is scripture. And all scripture -- including the NT -- is G~d-breathed.

Who decides what is Scripture or not? In other words, who decided which books belonged in the Bible? Scripture doesn't just become Scripture. Someone had to decide which books went in and which books didn't. Who was the person who compiled it? Or did God just magically compiled the volume himself and dropped it in the drawers of motels around the nation?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader

What Jesus said is allegorical to the Creation of the first humans, that he created the first of the species homo sapiens male and female. "Beginning of creation" refers to the creation of human beings, not the very beginning. This should be obvious, because human beings weren't created on the first "day"(... which is actually Hebrew for "age").

Actually, the Hebrew for "day" is yowm and the meaning of the word must be taken from the context. The context is the description "evening and morning", which implies a normal day, not an age.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Originally posted by blader
Second, you didn't answer my question. What made you think I didn't know what allegory means?

Because the context of the quote from Jesus (and the section in Romans, too) rules out allegory.

Originally posted by blader
Third, you also ignored the point about the earth being held immobile. Do you interpret that literally then? The earth doesn't move?

You didn't give a reference so I have no idea what you're talking about. I assume you know what ESP means, right? I don't have it.