"Adam" in Greek

[Greg1234]

Alright, I'm finally through with you. There is a fair amount of hard headed skepticism on these boards but this is way too pedantic. Thanks for the exchange but I see no reason to continue wasting time arguing in circles with someone who has no principles or standards.

I'm not offended or even annoyed, it's just that your brand of skepticism lacks any tangible standard proof. This study was an interesting one for me but the reactionary responses of our two resident Creationist bashers has been tedious and overtly unproductive.

I wish you well Assyrian but you've exhausted my patience. Thanks for the exchange and I'll see you around.

Have a nice day
Mark

I think the problem is that most of us see Christian Darwinism as individualistic and disbanded rather than a sect of Christianity altogether. We see the icons which are Catholic or Baptist and therefore separate into parts. What I've realized though is that Christian Darwinism is a denomination on its own, and just like Baptists have their doctrine or principles, Christian Darwinism's modus operadi is promoting anything held by the mainstream science. If mainstream science (not you, not the bible) says tomorrow that Darwinism is false then the bible no longer teaches Darwinism. If you were arguing with a materialist then you would attack their interpretation of physical data, but in Christian Darwinism, with a clever mix as Chriscience, they become The Interpretation.

 

[Assyrian]

Who ever said the bible teaches Darwinism?

 

[gluadys]

If mainstream science (not you, not the bible) says tomorrow that Darwinism is false then the bible no longer teaches Darwinism. If you were arguing with a materialist then you would attack their interpretation of physical data, but in Christian Darwinism, with a clever mix as Chriscience, they become The Interpretation.

The Bible doesn't teach Darwinism any way and you would be hard put to find any Christian supporting the science of evolution claiming that it does.

The Bible doesn't teach any science which was unknown to the Hebrews at the time the passage was originally written. For example, the bible does not teach that:

the earth is a sphere,
the earth orbits the sun,
there is any such thing as outer space or galaxies
that the earth or any part of the universe is billions of years old
that whales are mammals, not fish
that bats are mammals, not birds
that bacteria or viruses or any form of microscopic life exists
that many diseases are caused by pathogenic bacteria or viruses or microscopic parasites
that rainbows are caused by light being broken up into its constituent colors by raindrops
that female ovaries play any part in the conception of a new embryo
that continents move
that mountain ranges develop over time

I could go on and on...

But we can sum it up by saying the bible teaches no modern science. And evolution is modern science.


In fact, I would say the bible teaches no science at all--but it often alludes to the "science" of its time without critiquing it.

 

[Philis]

I think the problem is that most of us see Christian Darwinism as individualistic and disbanded rather than a sect of Christianity altogether. We see the icons which are Catholic or Baptist and therefore separate into parts. What I've realized though is that Christian Darwinism is a denomination on its own, and just like Baptists have their doctrine or principles, Christian Darwinism's modus operadi is promoting anything held by the mainstream science. If mainstream science (not you, not the bible) says tomorrow that Darwinism is false then the bible no longer teaches Darwinism. If you were arguing with a materialist then you would attack their interpretation of physical data, but in Christian Darwinism, with a clever mix as Chriscience, they become The Interpretation.

What is Christian Darwinism? I've never heard anyone define themselves in that way.

 

[samaus12345]

A delusional attempt to mix an inherently atheistic doctrine with the God of the bible.

 

[Assyrian]

A delusional attempt to mix an inherently atheistic doctrine with the God of the bible.

So creationists are being delusional when they call TE 'Christian Darwinism'?

 

[Philis]

A delusional attempt to mix an inherently atheistic doctrine with the God of the bible.

This is a Christians only section, who in here is doing that?

 

[samaus12345]

Theistic evolution.

Atheists know what Genesis says

(quote 'mine') "I think there deluded" Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Is that all theistic evolution has to offer, propaganda and slander? I'll tell you what, maybe I'm judging you too harshly, why don't you tell us all plainly what the Roman Catholic Church teachers about Adam with regards to monogenism and original sin? And Papias do us all a favor, spare us the spam tactics, no one is fooled.

First, I agree that one of the listings for Adam in a lexicon mentions "first parent". It's interesting that after being asked for that many times, it still wasn't you who supplied that. Secondly, in short for the RCC - the RCC teaches that Adam was a single, real, human being, who was the ancestor of everyone alive today, who brought original sin. The RCC also confirms that this is consistent with the allowable idea of theistic evolution, in agreement with common descent (as supported by the Pope himself). Many Catholics see Adam as the first transitional ape-human to be given a soul by God. You'll remember that you yourself agreed that the RCC allows theistic evolution, right?

I wonder why you ask for that, since I've explained it to you at least a dozen times, including in our debate that I gave a link to in my earlier post.

Papias

 

[Philis]

Theistic evolution.

Is this a response to my question? You think all the TEs here are mixing atheist doctrine with the bible?

Well my understanding of the creation account has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with the cultural context. Do you think there is an atheist doctrine that I'm mixing into the bible?

 

[Assyrian]

Theistic evolution.
Atheists know what Genesis says
(quote 'mine') "I think there deluded" Dawkins
Richard Dawkins: "Theistic evolutionists are deluded" - YouTube

Richard Dawkins: There really is a deep incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity and I think I realised that at the age of about 16.
​

So really this argument against TE is based on the deep theological insights of an atheistic teenager?

What I find fascinating is that Creationists share the same interpretation of Genesis as atheists like Dawkins. Shouldn't we have a better understanding of God's word? Don't we have the Holy Spirit to open up its meaning to us? 1Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. Has the Holy Spirit been teaching Dawkins the meaning of Genesis too? Or if he is teaching Creationists, have they not been listening?

You should get you biology from Dawkins, that's what he is good at. Just don't get your theology from him.

 

[gluadys]

Well my understanding of the creation account has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with the cultural context. Do you think there is an atheist doctrine that I'm mixing into the bible?

The idea that evolution is the only reason not to consider the Genesis creation accounts literal is deep-rooted, but false.

I knew nothing of either evolution or ANE culture when I saw the greater sense (at list IMHO) of a non-historical reading.

 

[juvenissun]

The Bible doesn't teach Darwinism any way and you would be hard put to find any Christian supporting the science of evolution claiming that it does.

The Bible doesn't teach any science which was unknown to the Hebrews at the time the passage was originally written. For example, the bible does not teach that:

the earth is a sphere,
the earth orbits the sun,
there is any such thing as outer space or galaxies
that the earth or any part of the universe is billions of years old
that whales are mammals, not fish
that bats are mammals, not birds
that bacteria or viruses or any form of microscopic life exists
that many diseases are caused by pathogenic bacteria or viruses or microscopic parasites
that rainbows are caused by light being broken up into its constituent colors by raindrops
that female ovaries play any part in the conception of a new embryo
that continents move
that mountain ranges develop over time

I could go on and on...

But we can sum it up by saying the bible teaches no modern science. And evolution is modern science.


In fact, I would say the bible teaches no science at all--but it often alludes to the "science" of its time without critiquing it.

It's been a while. I still do not understand what are you trying to say in the above.

EVERYTHING bears some messages of science.

If someone said: "the sun rises ..." or the "the ocean is deep", it has some science in it. Why do you want to emphasize so much that the Bible says no science? The real emphasis should be: who can read the science in the Bible?

To me, the Bible is more than a science book, It is a source book of science. When one reached to the top level of a science discipline, the Bible is able to teach the person what's more to learn in that discipline.

Many years ago, I put Job 38:38 (When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?) on the first page of my dissertation. I am still amazed that Job (or whoever) was able to wrote that simple question of scientific truth in that amazing chapter. We can understand what does the question mean today (at just about half a Century ago). But we are still busy in trying to find an answer to it.

 

[gluadys]

It's been a while. I still do not understand what are you trying to say in the above.

EVERYTHING bears some messages of science.

Often it does. That is why I said the bible often alludes to the science of its time. It would be practically impossible not to.

But "allude" does not mean "teach". It does not mean to provide evidence that something is true or untrue.

What we can observe is that when such allusions occur in scripture they use the concepts of the time. Authors of scripture do not even allude to the items I listed or anything else in modern science.

To me, the Bible is more than a science book, It is a source book of science. When one reached to the top level of a science discipline, the Bible is able to teach the person what's more to learn in that discipline.

I see your approach to science and the Bible as pure eisegesis. You read into the text what you want to see, not what is actually there. For example:

Many years ago, I put Job 38:38 (When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?) on the first page of my dissertation. I am still amazed that Job (or whoever) was able to wrote that simple question of scientific truth in that amazing chapter. We can understand what does the question mean today (at just about half a Century ago). But we are still busy in trying to find an answer to it.

I expect Job was probably referring to something like this:
http://www.bobphoto.com/data/photos/95_1Texas_mudflat_IMG_9480.JPG

btw, as a matter of curiosity, what was the title & topic of your dissertation and to whom was it presented?

 

[mark kennedy]

Richard Dawkins: "Theistic evolutionists are deluded" - YouTube

Over the years I have come to appreciate two evolutionists, Darwin himself and Dawkins. They are at least honest about what 'evolution' is focused on. I know you don't believe me my TE brethren but when they are done with Creationists they will turn on you with the same tenacious animosity.

It's never been about biology or geology, it was always one long argument against God. Those of you who simply come on here to correct, chastise and insult Creationists are being used, don't know why you can't see that.

 

[juvenissun]

Often it does. That is why I said the bible often alludes to the science of its time. It would be practically impossible not to.

But "allude" does not mean "teach". It does not mean to provide evidence that something is true or untrue.

What we can observe is that when such allusions occur in scripture they use the concepts of the time. Authors of scripture do not even allude to the items I listed or anything else in modern science.

I see your approach to science and the Bible as pure eisegesis. You read into the text what you want to see, not what is actually there. For example:

I expect Job was probably referring to something like this:
http://www.bobphoto.com/data/photos/95_1Texas_mudflat_IMG_9480.JPG

btw, as a matter of curiosity, what was the title & topic of your dissertation and to whom was it presented?

It may or may not be true that I read science into Bible verses. But the text has to be there first for me to read into it. This is a normal process to "discover" any ancient wisdom unless we assume all early people were dumb. I just don't buy your idea. My personal experience tells me again and again that some Bible verses are extremely inspirational in science. If I could read science (and science fiction) into those verses, I will be very happy.

No. The picture you suggested is only a simple example on what the verse describes, but it failed to address the word "When". It is the key word of the whole sentence and it presents the highest challenge to people of all time. God will not ask Job this stupid question if it only means hardened mud cracks. Job certainly know when will a mud flat crack (he can simply wait and see it happen before his eyes). An extended meaning of that verse points to sedimentary rocks in general, which include mudstone (and, you know what? gas shale!). And the process is now called "diagenesis". It is one of the hottest geological issue in 1980's.

 

[Greg1234]

I could go on and on...

But we can sum it up by saying the bible teaches no modern science. And evolution is modern science.


In fact, I would say the bible teaches no science at all--but it often alludes to the "science" of its time without critiquing it.

Does this modern science teach about God, the existence and role of the soul, and the principles of prayer, faith, and forgiveness?

 

[gluadys]

Does this modern science teach about God, the existence and role of the soul, and the principles of prayer, faith, and forgiveness?

No. None of those things can be investigated by scientific techniques of inquiry, That is why science can neither prove nor disprove anything about them.


One might just as well try to catch moonlight in a sieve.

 

[Greg1234]

No.

Exactly.

 

[samaus12345]

It's never been about biology or geology, it was always one long argument against God

EXACTLY well put my brother. Satan deceived Eve in the garden of eden with "your eyes will be open and you will be wise like God", this is what the whole *false* appeal by dawkins and other atheistic preachers to science is all about.

From 3.30 onwards i sense pleasure with dawkins/satan. It doesnt matter if someone is a hardcore atheist or they *claim* they are undecided so long as THEY DONT BELIEVE JESUS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5QG3MUTtg