Bible and science?

[The Barbarian]

Make you a deal--- yes, baramin is a word that does not appear as written in Scripture

Right. It's a modern concept, not a Biblical one.

neither does the word trinity.

While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, it was first formulated as early Christians attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions.[8] The New Testament possesses a "triadic" understanding of God[6] and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas.[7] The Ante-Nicene Fathers asserted Christ's deity and spoke of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", even though their language is not that of the traditional doctrine as formalized in the fourth century. Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine. An early Trinitarian formula appears towards the end of the first century, where Clement of Rome rhetorically asks in his epistle as to why corruption exists among some in the Christian community; "Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?"[13] Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110, exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit"
...

Later, at the First Council of Constantinople (381), the Nicene Creed would be expanded, known as Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, by saying that the Holy Spirit is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son (συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον), suggesting that he was also consubstantial with them:


We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; (...) And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets (...). — Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.[31]
The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[32] He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[30] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.
Trinity - Wikipedia

The Trinity is an essential element of Christian belief, and has been so since ancient times. "Baramin" is a very modern addition that is held only by a small minority of the world's Christians. Not much in common.

Both words are biblical in they perfectly describe biblical truths.

You believe so. But it's not part of orthodox Christian faith.

And sorry we cannot accept the 2016 paper.

That's the thing about reality; doesn't matter at all, whether you accept it or not. It's still there.

As long as you pull Wise out of context and try to confuse watchersby saying a progressive creationist is a creationist trying ot give the appearance he is a biblical creationist,

I said that? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I didn't say that. You just made it up.

 

[nolidad]

Right. It's a modern concept, not a Biblical one.

Is that why the ancient rabbis used the word? They didn't get the message to wait???

You believe so. But it's not part of orthodox Christian faith.

Wrong again.

Trinity and God created kinds are both orthodoxy!

Baramin did not take on its scientific technicalness until the 20th century. But then again until after the dark ages createdkinds and a young earth was universal in christianity.

I said that? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I didn't say that. You just made it up

No you didn't say it- you just did it! I will give you credit for crafting answers to make them appear to be something they are not.

 

[nolidad]

And now we get genetic confirmation. No matter how you measure similarities. Humans and chimpanzees come up more closely related to each other than either is to any other organism. No way to dodge that.

Once again believers in evolutionism (YECs) see what they believe and not believe what they see!

No we come up more closely similar genetically. Relationship is just a phrase created by evoilutionism to try to show we are actually distant cousins or brothers or whatever they say now a days. don't dodge that, Just accept that! Chimps are related to A. Afarenses- Man is not.

And maybe you should come up with you rown phrase, taking mine is poor form!

 

[The Barbarian]

No we come up more closely similar genetically.

That's the hard part for YECs. No matter how you measure the genetic distance between species, we sitll come up with the same phylogenies showing humans and chimps to be most closely related to each other.

Relationship means something quite different in the YEC doctrine of evoilutionism. Genetic data shows common descent (and we can verify this by checking organisms of known descent). YECs to try to show we aren't related, and misrepresent the data showing common descent. Don't dodge that, Just accept that! Chimps are related to A. afarenses just as man is. The difference is that humans and chimps have a common ancestor that is not shared by any other organism.

And maybe you should come up with you rown phrase, taking mine is poor form!

I'm just noting what your new doctrine of "evolutionism" says.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is that why the ancient rabbis used the word?

You claimed a source in the 19th century, but declined to support it when asked. Even if it exists, the 19th century is hardly "ancient."

Barbarian, regarding the 20th century term "baramin."
You believe so. But it's not part of orthodox Christian faith.

Wrong again.

I'm quite right. Aside from a small group of YECs, it's not used by any Christian denomination.

Trinity and God created kinds are both orthodoxy!

"Baramin" seems to have gotten lost somewhere now. For obvious reasons.

Baramin did not take on its scientific technicalness until the 20th century.

It's just a new religious belief. No "technicalness," just a new revision to scripture.

But then again until after the dark ages created kinds and a young earth was universal in christianity.

The big difference between them and you, is that they approved of the way He created kinds. And you don't.

And now we get genetic confirmation. No matter how you measure similarities. Humans and chimpanzees come up more closely related to each other than either is to any other organism. No way to dodge that.

Once again believers in evolutionism (YECs) see what they believe and not believe what they see!

 

[nolidad]

Relationship means something quite different in the YEC doctrine of evoilutionism. Genetic data shows common descent (and we can verify this by checking organisms of known descent). YECs to try to show we aren't related, and misrepresent the data showing common descent. Don't dodge that, Just accept that! Chimps are related to A. afarenses just as man is. The difference is that humans and chimps have a common ancestor that is not shared by any other organism.

that would be in error.

It is the opinion of the priests of evolutionism that says it shows common descent!

YEC scientists show similar purposes show similar design!

Well we don't know the genetic makeup of A. Afarenses so anything saying we are related is opinion.

Yec does not misrepresent the dat- they expand the datas to show how unrelated man and ape are.

Just remember we cannot exchange genetic material we cannot exchange organs

And our relatedness is through arbitrary groupings based on an evolutionary presuppositional world view. So yes the deck is stacked against the truth in the science circles controlled by evolutionists.

I'm quite right. Aside from a small group of YECs, it's not used by any Christian denomination.

In this age of Laodecia where so many denominations only have a form of godliness but deny the power that is not surprising.

I am here debating with one who says they are Christian, but do you know Him who died for you or is it just religious practice?

 

[nolidad]

You claimed a source in the 19th century, but declined to support it when asked. Even if it exists, the 19th century is hardly "ancient."

Barbarian, regarding the 20th century term "baramin."
You believe so. But it's not part of orthodox Christian faith.

Once again baramin was used even in Jesus day or shortly after according to surviving rabbinic writings.
Keil and Delitzsch used it in their 11 volume commentary.

And it is found in Eddersheims work on th elife and times of Jesus the Messiah. So you are just wrong.

Wiki did not search Hebrew sources. It has been given a greater scientific emphasis in modern times, but the term "created kinds" or baramin is an old term.

I'm quite right. Aside from a small group of YECs, it's not used by any Christian denomination.

Well the average person doesn't use the term "clade" either.

But many many Christian denominations use God created kinds (baramin in English- whoops) enjoy the truth! it is a technical term in Creation science.

It's just a new religious belief. No "technicalness," just a new revision to scripture.

Now you are promulgating a lie! That would make you a .........?
Even the rabbis in the older days used it. You are just intentionally deceptive.

The big difference between them and you, is that they approved of the way He created kinds. And you don't.

And now we get genetic confirmation. No matter how you measure similarities. Humans and chimpanzees come up more closely related to each other than either is to any other organism. No way to dodge that.

Hey I cannot defend those who prostituted themselves to science falsely so called! But mankind is one formed kind and monkeys and chimps and apes etc. are another created kind! we are even kissing cousins or cousins 50 times removed! we have genetic similarities but that doesn't make us evolved from anything.

It is the 650-750,000,000 DNA base pair differences that are key! No way to dodge that!

Once again believers in evolutionism (YECs) see what they believe and not believe what they see!

Well for once we agree! As YEC scientists do not believe in evolutionism- they do see what they believe but DO believe what they see!

See we don't have to create all these fanciful stories to try to sell a belief in something that has never been seen (change in the family, genus order, phyla etc) . We just present empirical science to show that the dogmas of evolution cannot occur!

 

[nolidad]

For Barbarian:

Still waiting for you to show all of us the mutations between denosovian man and modern man!

But here is an even more recent "homo"discovery demoted to pithecus.

Homo naledi had Lucy-Like Hips
BY TIM CLAREY, PH.D. * | MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2018

Hips can reveal many things about fossilized organisms, especially when it comes to mammals. They can indicate the difference between species and even reveal the differences between the sexes of the same species.

Last fall, we reported on the latest research findings that showed Homo naledi was less human-like and more Australopith-like. ICR concluded that the small-brained Homo naledi was just another Lucy-like ape—similar to a modern chimpanzee.1

Another study, recently published in the Journal of Human Evolution, examined Homo naledi’s hips.2 The authors compared the hips to other known ape and human species and their results were consistent with ICR’s understanding, but unexpected to evolutionists.2

Lee Berger, Homo naledi’s discoverer, recruited Caroline VanSickle and about 30 other scientists to study different aspects of the fossils. The team assigned to study the hips came from the University of Wisconsin, University of Witwatersrand, Vassar College, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (Madrid, Spain), New York University, and Duke University.

VanSickle, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and her colleagues pieced together roughly 40 pelvic fragments, from at least four individuals to make their best attempt at solving the pelvic issue.2 All of these fragments came from the Dinaledi Chamber in South Africa, where Berger made his initial discovery.3

VanSickle says, “The downside is that the Homo naledi fragments are far less complete than fossils from other sites, so figuring out how they fit together and what they mean for how Homo naledi walked or gave birth is much more difficult.”4

The team found a flared ilium (the upper hip bone) that widens to the side. This shape of ilium is only found in other australopith species.2


“You don’t see this flared an ilium in later hominins,” VanSickle commented. “This is bizarrely Lucy-like.”4

Though this species has been attributed to Homo based on cranial and lower limb morphology, the morphology of some of the fragmentary pelvic remains recovered align more closely with specimens attributed to the species Australopithecus afarensis [Lucy] and Australopithecus africanus than they do with those of most (but not all) known species of the genus Homo.2

These findings are consistent with earlier analyses of the post-cranial aspects of Homo naledi, including the vertebrae and hips that also indicate that Homo naledi most closely resembles an australopith.1 And the brain size to body mass analysis performed by O’Micks also showed the close resemblance of Homo naledi to the australopiths.5 VanSickle and her co-authors concluded,

If found on their own, the pelvic remains from Homo naledi could easily be mistaken for those of an australopith based on their small size and laterally flared ilia, along with the fact that their only ‘Homo-like’ features overlap with A. sediba.2

Homo naledi was not human—just another extinct ape.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Bible is the Truth of God. So, in any place where the Bible and science seem to conflict, the Bible must win out.

When the Bible and science seem to contradict, then one has misunderstood one or both of them. And either is equally likely to be misunderstood.

 

[The Barbarian]

But many many Christian denominations use God created kinds (baramin in English- whoops) enjoy the truth! it is a technical term in Creation science.

Actually, "baramin" is not even acceptable Hebrew. More proper would be "minbara." But no one until recently used "baramin."

 

[dad]

When the Bible and science seem to contradict, then one has misunderstood one or both of them. And either is equally likely to be misunderstood.

Not really a problem. Science and the bible are pretty clear about where they say the world and man came from. It is not any issue of being misunderstood, only of believing one or the other. The truly confused try to claim both!

 

[The Barbarian]

Not really a problem. Science and the bible are pretty clear about where they say the world and man came from. It is not any issue of being misunderstood, only of believing one or the other. The truly confused try to claim both!

The confusion is within those who think they are opposed. God made creation. How could he be at odds with it?

 

[nolidad]

Actually, "baramin" is not even acceptable Hebrew. More proper would be "minbara." But no one until recently used "baramin."

You are correct but the anglicized form is baramin based on grammar rules beyond me.

 

[nolidad]

The confusion is within those who think they are opposed. God made creation. How could he be at odds with it?

I agree with you , God is not at odds with Creation! Only those who think He started it c. 14 billion years ago and created life one micromutation at a time are at odds with creation.

 

[nolidad]

When the Bible and science seem to contradict, then one has misunderstood one or both of them. And either is equally likely to be misunderstood.

True science has never contradicted Scripture. Philosophies of scientists have.

 

[dad]

The confusion is within those who think they are opposed. God made creation. How could he be at odds with it?

The created man and woman and world and sun and moon and stars we read about in the bible is not the big bang and the theory of evolution. Never the twain shall meet. No resemblance. Diametrically opposed stories.

 

[The Barbarian]

The created man and woman and world and sun and moon and stars we read about in the bible is not the big bang and the theory of evolution. Never the twain shall meet. No resemblance. Diametrically opposed stories.

Not for Christians. Most of us accept that His word is consistent with the things we see in nature.

 

[dad]

Not for Christians. Most of us accept that His word is consistent with the things we see in nature.

So Eve came from a bone in Adam? You thought science taught that!? Ha

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Not for Christians. Most of us accept that His word is consistent with the things we see in nature.

So Eve came from a bone in Adam?

So Jesus is literally a door?

You thought the Bible taught that!? Ha

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
Not for Christians. Most of us accept that His word is consistent with the things we see in nature.



So Jesus is literally a door?

You thought the Bible taught that!? Ha

So if Jesus is literally the door to eternal life and the only door, rather than a wooden door, this means there was no creation or any reality in His word?

Ha.

The same God who said He is the only way said He created Adam. By ridiculing the way He took a bone from Adam to do it, you offend the spirit of the text.