Adam & Eve

[sandwiches]

Okay, sandwiches, I'm back.

Sorry --- I'm giving a lecture tonight titled:

Where is the Water Canopy Today? A Lecture on the Canadian Shield, or Laurentian Theology.

Just kidding --- Yes.No.

For example: If evidence points to Egypt existing before the Flood, since this clearly contradicts the Bible, I take it on faith that the Bible is right, and these marks left over are wrong.

Then my faith [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right.

So, let's break down your last sentence using the terms you had agreed to previously:
"Then my belief without evidence [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right."

So to shorten this, you're saying the following:
"My BELIEF is evidence that I'm right."
Does this make sense to you?

Science, of course, is going to disagree, and then it becomes a matter of he-said/she-said.

I don't even think we should move on into the "validity" of evidence if the very definition of evidence and faith seem to be up in the air.

So, let's try to clarify.
Faith - Belief without evidence, Yes or no?

Evidence - Some sign left behind by an event, Yes or no?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, let's break down your last sentence using the terms you had agreed to previously:
"Then my belief without evidence [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right."

So to shorten this, you're saying the following:
"My BELIEF is evidence that I'm right."
Does this make sense to you?

Yes --- because, as the Bible says:

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

In other words, what generates and strengthens my faith is the Word of God.

So here's the chain:

1. Evidence = vestiges of things that happened.
2. Evidence is generated and strengthened by the Word of God.
3. The Word of God attests to things that happened.

At least, that's my take on it --- maybe someone has a better way of explaining it.

I don't even think we should move on into the "validity" of evidence if the very definition of evidence and faith seem to be up in the air.

Okay.

So, let's try to clarify.
Faith - Belief without evidence, Yes or no?

Yes --- for the sake of arguing.

Evidence - Some sign left behind by an event, Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sandwich --- I promise you --- I'm as easy as pie to get along with.

I'll do everything I can to agree with you, but I draw the line at saying the Bible is wrong.

Ask around, you'll see I agree with about 95% of the conclusions that even atheists here come to.

 

[Assyrian]

That's cute.

Yeah I thought it struck the right note for your argument.

That's real cute.
Father and daughter? I don't think so. The father is already married (i.e. "one" with his spouse).

Does a pillar of salt count? Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.

Do you think the bible mentions this approvingly to show us how wise and resourceful Lot's daughters were?

Do you?

No, I think people listening to the story would have been horrified, and were meant to be horrified and repulsed by what happened.

I am not sure you will actually find that 'pure gene pool' idea in the bible.

Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?

So it's not it the bible then, I thought not.

All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.

If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?

No. You'd lose the newer mutations but get a whole load of old ones that have since been selected out.

Correct --- that is why God did not insist on the Death Penalty in his case.

Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.

Certainly not a transgression of the law, but there is still sin because people do what they know is wrong. Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. As Paul says in Romans 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned. 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. There may not have been an explicit Mosaic law about things but they were still sin.

I'm not sure "expect you to" is right --- after all --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.

Figuratively you mean?

 

[sandwiches]

Yes --- because, as the Bible says:In other words, what generates and strengthens my faith is the Word of God.

So here's the chain:

1. Evidence = vestiges of things that happened.
2. Evidence is generated and strengthened by the Word of God.
3. The Word of God attests to things that happened.

At least, that's my take on it --- maybe someone has a better way of explaining it.Okay.Yes --- for the sake of arguing.Yes.

Great.

So the following chain can be assumed:
1. Evidence of X is found.
2. X goes against the Bible.
3. Your evidenceless belief (faith) trumps the evidence.
4. X is wrong and the evidence must also be wrong.

Now, we showed that the Earth moves despite what the Bible says about it being immovable. What does this mean? Is the Bible wrong, then?

Sandwich --- I promise you --- I'm as easy as pie to get along with.

I'll do everything I can to agree with you, but I draw the line at saying the Bible is wrong.

Ask around, you'll see I agree with about 95% of the conclusions that even atheists here come to.

Why do you draw the line there? Does that mean that you've believed it but you won't confess to it or does that mean that you'll cover up for the Bible? What exactly are you saying?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

His belief is that the Bible is always 100% correct, 100% of the time.

Contradictions are only apparent contradictions, and the Bible in time will reveal the truth.

Anything contrary to a literal interpretation of the AVKJV can take a hike.

How'd I do AV?

 

[Hespera]

You will never know..................................

 

[AV1611VET]

His belief is that the Bible is always 100% correct, 100% of the time.

Contradictions are only apparent contradictions, and the Bible in time will reveal the truth.

Anything contrary to a literal interpretation of the AVKJV can take a hike.

How'd I do AV?

Not bad --- not bad at all ---

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Not bad --- not bad at all ---

Thank you.

 

[sandwiches]

Not bad --- not bad at all ---

You haven't answered my last post. How do explain the discrepancy between what is and what the Bible says it should be?

 

[BRISH]

If you don't want to look at it from a biblical stand point, then look at it scientifically.

Evolution is a progression of changes. Meaning that the original form no longer exists once the evolution begins.

If we came from apes/chimpanzes/monkeys...then they wouldnt exist in this day and time. This universe is running on a PRECISE formula. Just one slight change in several things in nature and life would be non-existant. I don't see how one can believe that soo many perfectly alligned things could have happened by mistake.

Just my take.....scientifically.

 

[gaara4158]

If you don't want to look at it from a biblical stand point, then look at it scientifically.

Evolution is a progression of changes. Meaning that the original form no longer exists once the evolution begins.

If we came from apes/chimpanzes/monkeys...then they wouldnt exist in this day and time. This universe is running on a PRECISE formula. Just one slight change in several things in nature and life would be non-existant. I don't see how one can believe that soo many perfectly alligned things could have happened by mistake.

Just my take.....scientifically.

While I can appreciate your attempt at scientific thought, it is evident that you haven't examined the theory of evolution in any light, biblical or scientific. Nobody is claiming that we came from monkeys/chimpanzees/apes. We share a common apelike ancestor with monkeys, yes, and that ancestor is gone, as you said it should be. Actually, something like 98% of all species that ever lived are now extinct.

The second part of your argument is argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it's not possible.

 

[plindboe]

If you don't want to look at it from a biblical stand point, then look at it scientifically.

Evolution is a progression of changes. Meaning that the original form no longer exists once the evolution begins.

If we came from apes/chimpanzes/monkeys...then they wouldnt exist in this day and time.

There's no reason to assume that the common ancestor must necessarily seize to exist. Your parents didn't disappear once you were born. Europeans didn't vanish as soon as the US was founded.

That said, the common ancestor we do share with chimpanzees is as it happens extinct.

This universe is running on a PRECISE formula. Just one slight change in several things in nature and life would be non-existant.

The chance that we live in a world where the conditions allow for our existance are 100%. If the conditions didn't allow for our existance we wouldn't be here in the first place.

I don't see how one can believe that soo many perfectly alligned things could have happened by mistake.

I don't believe such.

Just my take.....scientifically.

It's your take but there's nothing scientific about it. I suggest that you learn a bit about evolution before assuming that you have valid critique to offer.

You can start at this site: Welcome to Evolution 101!

I also recently saw this excellent video that addresses some common misconceptions:

YouTube - Evolution

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

You haven't answered my last post. How do explain the discrepancy between what is and what the Bible says it should be?

Don't know, sandwiches.

I reek when it comes to explaining things past several posts.

I do the best I can, then I have to quit.

Like I said, maybe someone more informed can explain it better --- I can't.

 

[sandwiches]

Don't know, sandwiches.

I reek when it comes to explaining things past several posts.

I do the best I can, then I have to quit.

Like I said, maybe someone more informed can explain it better --- I can't.

Sorry, I'm back. But you didn't explain it at all.

 

[dad]

You haven't answered my last post. How do explain the discrepancy between what is and what the Bible says it should be?

Can you give an example or two of these? I never saw one yet in my life. (except for a few misconceptions, easily straitened out)

Not like God was wrong, or something.

 

[sandwiches]

Can you give an example or two of these? I never saw one yet in my life. (except for a few misconceptions, easily straitened out)

Not like God was wrong, or something.

God hasn't been wrong, as far as I know, but humans have been and seeing how the Bible was written by said humans...

This was the original question as he said he believed anything the Bible says over ANYTHING else including his own senses:

Do you believe that the world is immovable as in Psalm 93:1?

"He fixed the earth firm and immovable."
​

Edit: He eventually said that he "draws the line" at saying that the Bible is ever wrong as though to indicate that he agreed with me but because of principle, he is unwilling to actually admit it.

 

[dad]

God hasn't been wrong, as far as I know, but humans have been and seeing how the Bible was written by said humans...

No. It was recorded by men. It was written by God. Some of it was Him talking directly. Actual quates from the Almighty. Some were heard by men. Example..'this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased'

Other times God actually wrote it Himself. Look at the ten commandments, by the finger of God! No need to blame men.

This was the original question as he said he believed anything the Bible says over ANYTHING else including his own senses:

Do you believe that the world is immovable as in Psalm 93:1?

"He fixed the earth firm and immovable."​

Of course. Do you know what it means? It means that this world ain't going anywhere. It will be here forever. Even after the surface of this planet gets burned with fire, and a new heavens appear. The ball itself will still be here, and made new. It is unmovable. The spirit is required to comprehend what is said, and meant.

Another place it says "I shall not be moved"

Do you really think that means that the guy will never walk?
​

Edit: He eventually said that he "draws the line" at saying that the Bible is ever wrong as though to indicate that he agreed with me but because of principle, he is unwilling to actually admit it.

It is not he that needs to admit is is wrong. It is you that needs to admit it is right.

 

[sandwiches]

No. It was recorded by men. It was written by God. Some of it was Him talking directly. Actual quates from the Almighty. Some were heard by men. Example..'this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased'

Other times God actually wrote it Himself. Look at the ten commandments, by the finger of God! No need to blame men.

I do hope that you realize that to quote the Bible to prove that Bible is true is a bit pointless to someone like me.

Of course. Do you know what it means? It means that this world ain't going anywhere. It will be here forever. Even after the surface of this planet gets burned with fire, and a new heavens appear. The ball itself will still be here, and made new. It is unmovable. The spirit is required to comprehend what is said, and meant.
[/indent]It is not he that needs to admit is is wrong. It is you that needs to admit it is right.

Here's the meaning of 'immovable' from dictionary.com

1. Incapable of being moved; firmly fixed; fast; -- used of material things; as, an immovable foundatin. Immovable, infixed, and frozen round. --Milton.
2. Steadfast; fixed; unalterable; unchangeable; -- used of the mind or will; as, an immovable purpose, or a man who remain immovable.
3. Not capable of being affected or moved in feeling or by sympathy; unimpressible; impassive. --Dryden.
​

Or from Strong's Concordance:
It's from the Hebrew mowt meaning:

to totter, shake, slip
a) (Qal) to totter, shake, slip
b) (Niphal) to be shaken, be moved, be overthrown
c) (Hiphil) to dislodge, let fall, drop
d) (Hithpael) to be greatly shaken
​

The word used in the Bible and the word used in the modern translations are all talking about LITERAL and ACTUAL movement. They are saying that the Earth can literally not be shaken, moved, or dislodged. However it does move, shake, and it's definitely not lodged into anything.

So, your interpretation is incorrect. They are talking about literal movement and you're talking equivocating 'immovable' with 'indestructible' or 'eternal' or something else entirely. Strong's and the dictionary do not agree with your interpretation. So, again, how do you interpret this discrepancy? Psalms claims that the Earth cannot be MOVED -- not destroyed, changed from it's path, or anything else -- MOVED, yet it moves.

 

[sandwiches]

It is not he that needs to admit is is wrong. It is you that needs to admit it is right.

If he were, I would concede but his arguments were similar to your and I similarly disassembled them. His phrase, " I'll do everything I can to agree with you, but I draw the line at saying the Bible is wrong." indicates that he'll agree with me if he sees the logic or reason in my arguments but that he won't admit that the Bible is wrong even if he agrees with me.