An Origins poll

[PaladinValer]

The passage that a day for God is a thousand years and a thousand years is day for God is best understood that God stands outside of time.

Exactly. Point being?

"But let us see what St. Ephraim says in his commentary on Genesis:

No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names. (Commentary on Genesis, ch. I)





​

These are still, of course, general principles; let us look now at several specific applications by St. Ephraim of these principles.

Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the first day continued for 12 hours each. (Ibid.)"


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.


​

And I know Eastern Orthodox Christians who have no problem with evolution and are devout TEs. So Fallacy of Appealing to Authority.

The problem with a the term day meaning anything other then a 24 hour day is that you would have to be inconsistent in interpretation of the original text.

Only if you do not know Hebrew linguistics, which uses the same word in multiple ways, just as we do with our English words. "Day" in Hebrew can mean a number of various definitions, depending on context.

The word for 'day' appears around 104 times in the bible those who read Genesis as creationists say that all 104 times it means a 24 hour day.

Which is, since it is a total disregard of Hebrew linguistics, and illogical and incorrect approach.

Those who read Genesis from another point of view would be saying it means a 24 hour day in every case except Genesis 1.

Sorry, but TEs do not "pick and choose." We look at the context, as Hebrew linguistics demands us to. If we weren't, we are setting ourselves up to misinterpret.

A point of view that is not quite scientific especially since there are far more accurate words that can specify longer lengths of time.

Other way around. It is a strictly literal interpretation that makes no logical or scientific sense.

Anyhow
that probabyl won't convince you so its all good...

It won't because it is based on an inaccurate opinion.

 

[theywhosowintears]

1. Isaiah 11:12 "And will gather the dispersed of JudahFrom the four corners of the earth." Is the earth flat with corners? Yes or no?

Since this Forum is under "Theology" may I give some context to this scripture:


***1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
*** from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
*** 2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him-
*** the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
*** the Spirit of counsel and of power,
*** the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD -
*** 3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD .

***
Jesus (need I say more?)

*** 10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious 11In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

12 He will raise a banner for the nations
*** and gather the exiles of Israel;
*** he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
*** from the four quarters of the earth

*says more* The entire section is prophesying the coming of The Messiah (Jesus Christ) and the end times. In context we see a prophet saying the people of Isreal (and the nations all Christians etc) will be gathered together from the four 'corners (or quarters) of the earth' (in other words for all over the world).

It is simply metaphorical for the whole world.

Lets look at the differences in text.


Genesis : In the beginning this did happen.

Isaiah 11: In the future these somewhat specific things will happen however it is described poeticallly and figuratively.For example Jesse is no more a stump then Jesus Christ a Branch (figuratively yes literally no) prophecy contains metaphor Genesis is an account of history.

Does that make sense?

Peace

 

[theywhosowintears]

Exactly. Point being?





And I know Eastern Orthodox Christians who have no problem with evolution and are devout TEs. So Fallacy of Appealing to Authority.



Only if you do not know Hebrew linguistics, which uses the same word in multiple ways, just as we do with our English words. "Day" in Hebrew can mean a number of various definitions, depending on context.



Which is, since it is a total disregard of Hebrew linguistics, and illogical and incorrect approach.



Sorry, but TEs do not "pick and choose." We look at the context, as Hebrew linguistics demands us to. If we weren't, we are setting ourselves up to misinterpret.



Other way around. It is a strictly literal interpretation that makes no logical or scientific sense.



It won't because it is based on an inaccurate opinion.

Ok so when I am not at work i will get out my original languages and check it out for you. *watch this space*

 

[Antman_05]

Glad to see the Poll shows the truth, but even still if it handn't been 6 day creation as comeing first, then the Bible would still be Truth and 6 day creation would still be true.

 

[Numenor]

Theistic Evolution. YEC is not science in any sense of the word.

 

[knownbeforetime]

I like theywhosowintears' explanation. In prophecy, the person is told to write down what they are SHOWN. In history, the person is told to write down what they are TOLD. Genesis is an account of history. Isaiah is an account of prophecy.

Someone threw Isaiah 11:12 at me. You used KJV, I use NIV which says "four quarters". The Earth can easily be divided into four quarters. This doesn't support either a flat earth or round earth theory.

In Titus 1, he is testifying AGAINST the false apostles that are saying things like "all cretans are liars". That is why he says at the end, "This testimony is true". It would really do you well to read the whole chapter... The Bible fails to provide any context for racism or hate. I still don't think I missed the point of this little excersise. One of you was saying that someone could use that as an excuse for hate. Anyone could see through that misuse of scripture.

PaladinValer, the heavens that were created in Genesis 1 is the universe. God lived in heaven, then he created the heavens and the earth. He created the universe and then everything inside. He created light and separated it from the darkness and the evening and the morning were the first day.

Just for the record, I am NOT STUPID. That was proven by a psychologist in 2002. I have an IQ of 133 which really means I know how to answer questions. Anyway, moving on, I am in school to study Physics, mainly Astrophysics. (I have been in a physics class for two semesters and origins has not come up once. Learning about force and now electricity has not conflicted with my view of origins.) I am NOT opposed to science that is based on observation but I AM opposed to science that is based on conjecture and a few equations that can't ever be proven. I.e., it has been proved that the universe is expanding. You can see it. You can see that the planets go around the sun and that the sun goes around the galaxy. You can NOT see the big bang. There's only one reliable record and that's from God's own "mouth".

I haven't read a whole lot of creationist literature. I have never read any of AiG stuff. I looked at ICR's website once or twice. I have only watched the first two of Kent Hovind's seminar tapes. (Hovind bothers me. He goes from high school science teacher to evolution know-it-all. I don't think so. He has lots of pics though...) There's only one guy I really listen too and that's Chuck Missler (www.khouse.org). I have come up with a bit on my own, with God's guidance of course.

I have read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and Brian Greene's An Elegant Universe. I also read Discover and Scientific American but it's really for a good laugh. I.e., in one issue of Discover, they said that Saturn's rings looked young but they just "know" that they're old. I was rolling on the floor for days (and yes, they were literal 24 hour days... ) In the latest issue of Discover they said that evolution has made taxonomy confusing. I guess they couldn't quite equate the cow with the whale under the old rules. Last spring, I gave an informative speech about the sun which got good remarks.

 

[PaladinValer]

I like theywhosowintears' explanation. In prophecy, the person is told to write down what they are SHOWN. In history, the person is told to write down what they are TOLD. Genesis is an account of history. Isaiah is an account of prophecy.

Being a historian, however, I can assure you that most of the "history" in Genesis is not accurate.

Someone threw Isaiah 11:12 at me. You used KJV, I use NIV which says "four quarters". The Earth can easily be divided into four quarters. This doesn't support either a flat earth or round earth theory.

Actually, it does. You forget that the Hebrew cosmology was that of a flat Earth and a literal pillars that held up the heavens.

In Titus 1, he is testifying AGAINST the false apostles that are saying things like "all cretans are liars". That is why he says at the end, "This testimony is true". It would really do you well to read the whole chapter... The Bible fails to provide any context for racism or hate. I still don't think I missed the point of this little excersise. One of you was saying that someone could use that as an excuse for hate. Anyone could see through that misuse of scripture.

Yes, you have.

PaladinValer, the heavens that were created in Genesis 1 is the universe.

According only to the old cosmology. Jews and Christians today agree that heaven is an entirely different realm.

God lived in heaven, then he created the heavens and the earth. He created the universe and then everything inside. He created light and separated it from the darkness and the evening and the morning were the first day.

Sorry, but as this is based on the old cosmology, which has been proven to be false, basing your argument on it doesn't help your case.

Just for the record, I am NOT STUPID. That was proven by a psychologist in 2002. I have an IQ of 133 which really means I know how to answer questions. Anyway, moving on, I am in school to study Physics, mainly Astrophysics. (I have been in a physics class for two semesters and origins has not come up once. Learning about force and now electricity has not conflicted with my view of origins.)

Never said you were stupid now, did I?

I am NOT opposed to science that is based on observation but I AM opposed to science that is based on conjecture and a few equations that can't ever be proven. I.e., it has been proved that the universe is expanding. You can see it.

And so has evolution.

You can see that the planets go around the sun and that the sun goes around the galaxy. You can NOT see the big bang. There's only one reliable record and that's from God's own "mouth".

Whoopie-doo that you cannot see it...yet. To be quite frank, science is nearly there in actually viewing the literal edge of the universe.

 

[Vance]

Paladin, one quick clarification. It is not that the "history" of Genesis is inaccuate, but instead that those passages which might not be strictly historically accurate were never meant to be literal history in the first place. Not history in the way we think of history. I assume that is what you meant by including the quotation marks, but I thought I would add my two cents in on that point.

 

[PaladinValer]

Vance, you assume correctly

 

[knownbeforetime]

Being a historian, however, I can assure you that most of the "history" in Genesis is not accurate.

Are you assuming you know better? When I read Genesis 1-3, I take it to be literal unless it says otherwise. I have not found a basis for taking it as other than the literal truth.

Actually, it does. You forget that the Hebrew cosmology was that of a flat Earth and a literal pillars that held up the heavens.

This Hebrew cosmology is not evident in Isaiah 11:12 (or Genesis 1). The word is better translated quarters not corners.

According only to the old cosmology. Jews and Christians today agree that heaven is an entirely different realm.

Didn't I make that clear. Heavens (plural) is the universe. Heaven (singular) is where God is. God came out of Heaven and created the heavens and the earth.

Sorry, but as this is based on the old cosmology, which has been proven to be false, basing your argument on it doesn't help your case.

So Genesis 1:1-5 is wrong then?

Never said you were stupid now, did I?

No, and not by you. I've been called ignorant a fair few times...

And so has evolution.

No, it hasn't been proven. I have never seen it happen. I don't think anybody has seen it happen. Nobody has seen live animals change over several generations. If it has, I would have heard about it because I do read up on the lastest findings.

Whoopie-doo that you cannot see it...yet. To be quite frank, science is nearly there in actually viewing the literal edge of the universe.

Yes, I know we can see quite a ways. Can you see an explosion from inside the explosion? Somehow I don't think you'd be able to see the Big Bang at the edge, even if it were true. *thinks thoughts*

PS: Personally, I don't have nearly as big a beef with the Big Bang as I do with Biological Evolution...

 

[tryptophan]

I chose "Other." I probably best fit Theistic Evolution, or maybe what would be considered Evolutionary Creationism (I'm not sure). I think that that is the view that best fits the evidence.

 

[Dark Matter]

1. Isaiah 11:12 "And will gather the dispersed of JudahFrom the four corners of the earth." Is the earth flat with corners? Yes or no?

Since this Forum is under "Theology" may I give some context to this scripture...

It is simply metaphorical for the whole world.

Genesis : In the beginning this did happen.

Isaiah 11: In the future these somewhat specific things will happen however it is described poeticallly and figuratively.For example Jesse is no more a stump then Jesus Christ a Branch (figuratively yes literally no) prophecy contains metaphor Genesis is an account of history.

Does that make sense?

Peace

All, well done theywhoso, thank you.
I am happy to see you use hermaneutical skills in understanding scripture.

It makes sense except for just a few points for which I will require some clarification.

First, what rule did you employ to determine the metaphorical nature of the phrase "for corners"? Is this an arbitrary application of metaphor or is there some particular rules you have followed to be able to identify the metaphor? Please define the specific rule that helps you identify metaphor. I mean, I'd hate to think that you simply apply metaphore here because you would be silly to think the earth has four corners!

Second, please explain the rule you use to distinguish between poetic and figurative language. Based upon the rules you have used, (talk of the future is poetic and figurative) then Isaiah's prophecy that "the virgin will be with child" is also poetic and figurative, for surely everyone knows that virgins don't have children. What method do you employ to keep these interpretations straight and consistent with truth? Of course, there must be some rule other than you making sure that the Bible says what you want it to mean. Please define the rule so that everyone can apply it and come up will consistent and true interpretations as you have done.

Third, it is clear that Genesis 2 is beginning an historical narrative that continues throughout the Old Testament. Genesis 1 however is easily understood as an introduction to the narrative which introduces you to the God that the rest of the pentatuech is going to discuss. There is a clear break in the narrative and the two creation accounts are clearly distinguished. Genesis 1 introduces you to the God who created everything. The point here being that God is the creater of all things, not the creation itself, and further, that man is a special creation of God. Then beginning in chapter 2, we have the story of this special creation. Therefore, the day by day cycle in Genesis 1 is poetic form or apologetic genre, not a "scientific" or literal historic account of creation. Other that the fact that you disagree with this, please provide the hermaneutical principles by which you disagree with this (since this is a theology board, as you state above).

Thanks!
Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

I like theywhosowintears' explanation. In prophecy, the person is told to write down what they are SHOWN. In history, the person is told to write down what they are TOLD. Genesis is an account of history. Isaiah is an account of prophecy.

Hmmm...do you always interpret scripture simply because *you like* the interpretation? Please see my response to him above. Feel free to offer answers to the three questions I asked him. So, when Isaiah says that "the virgin will be with child", then this is figurative and poetic? If not, then please define the exact rule of interpretation you are using to distinguish between the two.

Someone threw Isaiah 11:12 at me. You used KJV, I use NIV which says "four quarters". The Earth can easily be divided into four quarters. This doesn't support either a flat earth or round earth theory.

Actually, I used the correct interpretation of the word, not the KJV. You can cross reference the word at blueletterbible.org if wish. Please don't use the NIV to argue the Hebrew. Kanaph does not mean quarters, it means ends or corners. The NIV interprets it as quarters for your sake of simplicity of reading. The NIV should never be used to make an argument from the original languages. If you need to stick to the english, then either use the NASB or perhaps the RSV. The NIV is not a word for word translation. It is good for devotional reading, not for theological study. Now back to the question...does the earth have four corners?

In Titus 1, he is testifying AGAINST the false apostles that are saying things like "all cretans are liars". That is why he says at the end, "This testimony is true". It would really do you well to read the whole chapter... The Bible fails to provide any context for racism or hate. I still don't think I missed the point of this little excersise. One of you was saying that someone could use that as an excuse for hate. Anyone could see through that misuse of scripture.

Anyone who is open to understanding scripture as for what it actually says can see the misuse. Now that we have that clear, anyone who understands evolutionary theory (not naturalistic evolution, but the basic principle of things such as natural selection) can see your misuse of quotes from the evolutionary literature. Turn it around, and that is how your words sound to us. You demonstrate, unfortunately, no understanding at all of the scientific understanding of these things and a staunch bias in interpreting all things.

Just for the record, I am NOT STUPID. That was proven by a psychologist in 2002. I have an IQ of 133 which really means I know how to answer questions.

IQ tells of your ability to abstract think. It does not make you understand things you have not studied. My IQ is a little more than 20 points higher than yours, and I've been wrong on a lot of things. Don't lean on your IQ, it means nothing in regards to believing truth. Many psychopaths actually have very high IQs. Time and study is always the great humiliator. The more you learn, the less you realize you actually understand.

Anyway, moving on, I am in school to study Physics, mainly Astrophysics. (I have been in a physics class for two semesters and origins has not come up once. Learning about force and now electricity has not conflicted with my view of origins.)

Fantastic! May I recommend the works of another astrophysicist named Hugh Ross. He is NOT a theistic evolutionist. You may wish to begin with reading "the fingerprint of God." I believe you will love it!

I am NOT opposed to science that is based on observation but I AM opposed to science that is based on conjecture and a few equations that can't ever be proven. I.e., it has been proved that the universe is expanding. You can see it. You can see that the planets go around the sun and that the sun goes around the galaxy. You can NOT see the big bang. There's only one reliable record and that's from God's own "mouth".

You are being silly. Do you see God? Please "prove" God by current visual evidence--meaning you "see" Him. You must be consistent with your burdons of proof.

I haven't read a whole lot of creationist literature. I have never read any of AiG stuff. I looked at ICR's website once or twice. I have only watched the first two of Kent Hovind's seminar tapes. (Hovind bothers me. He goes from high school science teacher to evolution know-it-all. I don't think so. He has lots of pics though...) There's only one guy I really listen too and that's Chuck Missler (www.khouse.org). I have come up with a bit on my own, with God's guidance of course.

Missler is frighteningly loose with facts. He has been deceptive in his presentation of Hebrew texts (I can substantiate if you wish), and he presents fringe psuedo scientific ideas as compelling (such as the changing of the speed of light). Missler is the x-files of Christianity. I have personally sat in his studies and am familar with the man and his movement.

I have read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and Brian Greene's An Elegant Universe. I also read Discover and Scientific American but it's really for a good laugh. I.e., in one issue of Discover, they said that Saturn's rings looked young but they just "know" that they're old.
I was rolling on the floor for days (and yes, they were literal 24 hour days... ) In the latest issue of Discover they said that evolution has made taxonomy confusing. I guess they couldn't quite equate the cow with the whale under the old rules.

There you go again totally misrepresenting evolutionary quotes the same way as people do when they say that the Bible preaches hate. When they say "young", it is a relative term to their cosmology and planetary formation. They DO NOT mean, by any magnificent stretch of the imagination, thousands of years as you interpret their words to mean.

Let's turn this around. Please state the top three scientific evidences that the universe is YOUNG, meaning 10,000 years. The TOP three. Let's discuss them one at a time. Surely you must have three solid pieces of evidence.

Last spring, I gave an informative speech about the sun which got good remarks.

You didn't say that the sun was shrinking at a uniform rate did you?

Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

Glad to see the Poll shows the truth, but even still if it handn't been 6 day creation as comeing first, then the Bible would still be Truth and 6 day creation would still be true.

The poll has consistently shown that 2/3 of the church rejects Young Earth Creationism.

Dark Matter

 

[PaladinValer]

Are you assuming you know better?

I need not assume.

When I read Genesis 1-3, I take it to be literal unless it says otherwise. I have not found a basis for taking it as other than the literal truth.

That's an unrealistic and poor way. Any person can pick up, say, the Bhagavad Gita and get something out it. Only a person who knows something of Subcontinental history, anthropology, linguistics, and philosophy will really be able to truly understand. Same goes with the Holy Bible. If you want to understand it, you best get educated in the following areas, at the very least:

1. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek linguistics. optionally, other Semitic languages (especially those of the other peoples mention) and Egyptian
2. The philosophy of the Proto-Israelites and the Hebrew people from the 13th century BCE to the 1st century CE. Also, the philosophy of the Greeks from the 4th century BCE to the 1st century CE. Optionally, the philosophy of the Romans (arguably a must really), the Egyptians, Persians the Semites, and various Gentile communities near the Holy Land.
3. Theology of Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Hellenism from the ages.
4. History
5. Geography
6. Economics of the Hebrews, Greeks, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, and Romans.
7. Civils and Government structure of the same above
8. Sociology of the same above.
9. Psychological study of the various minds in the Holy Bible and important characters outside of it that were contemporaries.
10. Science, specifically ancient views of cosmology and scientific understanding as well as modern knowledge, especially of geology and biology.
11. Patristics
12. Septuagint and other early Bible translational studies
13. Study of the Early Church, with special emphasis on the Ecumeical Councils, the Creeds and Formulas, the heresies, and the development of dogma and doctrine, especially Christological dogma.

This Hebrew cosmology is not evident in Isaiah 11:12 (or Genesis 1). The word is better translated quarters not corners.

Tell that to the ancient Hebrews...

Didn't I make that clear. Heavens (plural) is the universe. Heaven (singular) is where God is. God came out of Heaven and created the heavens and the earth.

Again, tell that to the ancient Hebrews...

So Genesis 1:1-5 is wrong then?

If taken literally by what we know now as true, yes.

No, it hasn't been proven. I have never seen it happen. I don't think anybody has seen it happen. Nobody has seen live animals change over several generations. If it has, I would have heard about it because I do read up on the lastest findings.

Not well enough then, perhaps? I'm certain Vance or one of the other biology-buffs here will be able to explain far better than I.

Yes, I know we can see quite a ways. Can you see an explosion from inside the explosion? Somehow I don't think you'd be able to see the Big Bang at the edge, even if it were true. *thinks thoughts*

Not all of science's greatest discoveries have been through direct means. Often, an indirect approach can prove to be far more fruitful than a direct one. Sometimes, an indirect approach is the only way capable at the present momement.

 

[1denomination]

That's an unrealistic and poor way. Any person can pick up, say, the Bhagavad Gita and get something out it. Only a person who knows something of Subcontinental history, anthropology, linguistics, and philosophy will really be able to truly understand. Same goes with the Holy Bible. If you want to understand it, you best get educated in the following areas, at the very least:

1. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek linguistics. optionally, other Semitic languages (especially those of the other peoples mention) and Egyptian
2. The philosophy of the Proto-Israelites and the Hebrew people from the 13th century BCE to the 1st century CE. Also, the philosophy of the Greeks from the 4th century BCE to the 1st century CE. Optionally, the philosophy of the Romans (arguably a must really), the Egyptians, Persians the Semites, and various Gentile communities near the Holy Land.
3. Theology of Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Hellenism from the ages.
4. History
5. Geography
6. Economics of the Hebrews, Greeks, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, and Romans.
7. Civils and Government structure of the same above
8. Sociology of the same above.
9. Psychological study of the various minds in the Holy Bible and important characters outside of it that were contemporaries.
10. Science, specifically ancient views of cosmology and scientific understanding as well as modern knowledge, especially of geology and biology.
11. Patristics
12. Septuagint and other early Bible translational studies
13. Study of the Early Church, with special emphasis on the Ecumeical Councils, the Creeds and Formulas, the heresies, and the development of dogma and doctrine, especially Christological dogma.

So am I to assume that with out all of this I can in no way understand anything in the bible.


BTW you never mentioned the Holy Spirit, he seems to help me when trying to understand scripture.

 

[gluadys]

So am I to assume that with out all of this I can in no way understand anything in the bible.

Of course not. It is never a question of understanding all or none of the bible. A person who has no background in these topics can still understand some of the bible, while an expert in these fields will still NOT understand all the bible. But the expert will understand more of the bible than the neophyte. Is that hard to understand?

BTW you never mentioned the Holy Spirit, he seems to help me when trying to understand scripture.

And you will probably find the Holy Spirit can help you even more when you make an effort to improve your human understanding of scripture too.

 

[gluadys]

Nobody has seen live animals change over several generations. If it has, I would have heard about it because I do read up on the lastest findings.

Have you read this one?

G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

Perhaps back in 1980 you were not keeping up on latest findings and missed it.

 

[1denomination]

Of course not. It is never a question of understanding all or none of the bible. A person who has no background in these topics can still understand some of the bible, while an expert in these fields will still NOT understand all the bible. But the expert will understand more of the bible than the neophyte. Is that hard to understand?.

I belive the post I was responding to stated that only the person who as studied all of these

1. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek linguistics. optionally, other Semitic languages (especially those of the other peoples mention) and Egyptian
2. The philosophy of the Proto-Israelites and the Hebrew people from the 13th century BCE to the 1st century CE. Also, the philosophy of the Greeks from the 4th century BCE to the 1st century CE. Optionally, the philosophy of the Romans (arguably a must really), the Egyptians, Persians the Semites, and various Gentile communities near the Holy Land.
3. Theology of Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Hellenism from the ages.
4. History
5. Geography
6. Economics of the Hebrews, Greeks, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, and Romans.
7. Civils and Government structure of the same above
8. Sociology of the same above.
9. Psychological study of the various minds in the Holy Bible and important characters outside of it that were contemporaries.
10. Science, specifically ancient views of cosmology and scientific understanding as well as modern knowledge, especially of geology and biology.
11. Patristics
12. Septuagint and other early Bible translational studies
13. Study of the Early Church, with special emphasis on the Ecumeical Councils, the Creeds and Formulas, the heresies, and the development of dogma and doctrine, especially Christological dogma.

Would be able to truly understand the scriptures.

And you will probably find the Holy Spirit can help you even more when you make an effort to improve your human understanding of scripture too.

 

[PaladinValer]

So am I to assume that with out all of this I can in no way understand anything in the bible.

St. Augustine did superbly for his time. I do not believe it to be impossible, if extremely difficult.

Which is why we rely on experts and specialists for the most part, learn from them, and then apply. Of course, we should make some sort of effort ourselves to get aquainted with relevent information.

BTW you never mentioned the Holy Spirit, he seems to help me when trying to understand scripture.

Fallacy of Straw Man. That wasn't the point of my post. I do not deny the significance of the Holy Spirit's role in one's interpretation (though since just about anyone can interpret can "claim" to have the Spirit, that's a bit dangerous to sometimes go by as a claim), but my post is about reading the Holy Bible not just faithfully but mindfully.

Of course not. It is never a question of understanding all or none of the bible. A person who has no background in these topics can still understand some of the bible, while an expert in these fields will still NOT understand all the bible. But the expert will understand more of the bible than the neophyte. Is that hard to understand?

Bingo! Thanks for explaining it far better than I.

Have you read this one?

G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

Perhaps back in 1980 you were not keeping up on latest findings and missed it.

Probably not for either her or myself; it is a bit before both of our times.

I do know however they did the various experiments with fruitflies under a controlled environment and watched an entirely new species evolve literally right before their very eyes. Is it the same one as you've mentioned above?