Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[1611AV]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Bible-Creation-Evolution"

 

[AV1611VET]

Originally Posted by Research1

When the evolutionists loose they always bring up flat earth...
​

... or witch hunting, or the Crusades, or the Inquisition.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally Posted by Research1

When the evolutionists loose they always bring up flat earth...
​

... or witch hunting, or the Crusades, or the Inquisition.

...or Pluto, or the Challenger, or the Titanic...

Oh, wait -- that's your schtick.

 

[chris4243]

There's four ways to reconcile the facts:
1) The Creation account and possibly the genealogies are not literally true.
2) Just like we can design things via an evolutionary algorithm, that is the method God used to design us. He thought it all through in his mind, then poofed it into existence per the Genesis account timeline. This will match, be consistent with, and predict, all possible evidence for a theory of evolution, but could be faulted for not following Occam's Razor.
3) A global conspiracy in which the people who spend their lives searching for new knowledge, and have frequent bitter disputes over the veracity or correctness of the most trivial-looking facts, have somehow managed to put aside their differences and propagate a false theory and all of them keeping to that despite the constant questioning from creationists.
4) Scientists are really stupid and easily fooled, but luckily you are not and you know the truth and they're all dumb and mislead.

 

[1611AV]

...or Pluto, or the Challenger, or the Titanic...

Oh, wait -- that's your schtick.

Always adding such depth to the discussion Nathan.

Do you never have a valid question for creation or the Bible, or do you fear it to the point that you go out of your way to avoid it all together because of the answer you may get?

Thanks to WC's question, you now know who the serpent of Genesis is don't you.

 

[1611AV]

There's four ways to reconcile the facts:
1) The Creation account and possibly the genealogies are not literally true.
2) Just like we can design things via an evolutionary algorithm, that is the method God used to design us. He thought it all through in his mind, then poofed it into existence per the Genesis account timeline. This will match, be consistent with, and predict, all possible evidence for a theory of evolution, but could be faulted for not following Occam's Razor.
3) A global conspiracy in which the people who spend their lives searching for new knowledge, and have frequent bitter disputes over the veracity or correctness of the most trivial-looking facts, have somehow managed to put aside their differences and propagate a false theory and all of them keeping to that despite the constant questioning from creationists.
4) Scientists are really stupid and easily fooled, but luckily you are not and you know the truth and they're all dumb and mislead.

Or.

5) IT IS, AS GOD SAYS IT IS.

I'll go with 5

In the beginning GOD...

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Or.

5) IT IS, AS GOD SAYS IT IS.

I'll go with 5

In the beginning GOD...

Not trying to be pedantic, but I have never heard a reasonable response to god's "beginning."

Who created god?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Always adding such depth to the discussion Nathan.

At this point, there was nowhere for it to go but up.

Do you never have a valid question for creation or the Bible, or do you fear it to the point that you go out of your way to avoid it all together because of the answer you may get?

A question? One that even you will consider "valid"? Ok, how about this one:

Given that Jesus, his disciples, the Gospel writers, and the early church up to about AD 70-80 were all observant Jews, doesn't it make more sense to read and interpret the "New" Testament with a Jewish paradigm, rather than attempt to retorfit (some might argue hijack) the Hebrew Scriptures into a modern Christian one?

Thanks to WC's question, you now know who the serpent of Genesis is don't you.

I was given an opinion on the subject -- but you know what they say about opinons and certain body parts.

 

[TheReasoner]

Or.

5) IT IS, AS GOD SAYS IT IS.

I'll go with 5

In the beginning GOD...

Yes, it is as God says it is. Which is not the way you say it is. Or likely not, anyway. There is nothing that points in that direction. Only you say so, and the fact that you repeatedly insist your own interpretation is infallible makes me all the more skeptical to it's validity because such insistence smacks of narcissistic self-deification.

Take your insistence that for example the literalists who claim the world is not flat are not literalists because the bible doesn't say so. Well:

Daniel 4:10-11 (New International Version, ©2011)

10 These are the visions I saw while lying in bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

For this to be possible, in a literal sense, the earth must be flat.
A similar verse is shown in Matthew 4:8 where Jesus is taken to a mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth. Again, a literal impossibility.

Isa 40:22 says "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;"

So literally interpreted... Well, why haven't astronauts seen him sitting at the top of our atmosphere or somesuch thing.

Job also gets at it:
(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?
(Job 11:9 NRSV) Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Both of which, read literally, makes a spherical earth impossible.

And of course a few verses mentioning the ends of the earth:
Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8

So... From a literal reading of the bible the earth is flat. It has corners. Is set atop immovable pillars AND from verses not covered here I think has a hard dome above it.

Of course none of the above matter a whit if you read the bible figuratively in those places. But since you're a literalist I suppose you're consistent and also believe these verses are literal.

 

[TheReasoner]

Originally Posted by Research1

When the evolutionists loose they always bring up flat earth...
​

... or witch hunting, or the Crusades, or the Inquisition.

They are quite valid arguments as you have several things in common. You claim to read the bible literally. As did they. There is no empirical evidence supporting your viewpoint, nor theirs. They believed their interpretation was infallible, as do you it seems.

As for witch hunting and crusades they are effective in terms of showing the ultimate consequence of fanatical belief in one's own infallibility when it comes to bible reading. Consider for effect Clirus on these boards who claims genocide is good and just, so long as christians do the slaughter in a theocratic nation. She believes she's right. And she tends to agree with other literalists rather vehemently.

 

[Hespera]

They are quite valid arguments as you have several things in common. You claim to read the bible literally. As did they. There is no empirical evidence supporting your viewpoint, nor theirs. They believed their interpretation was infallible, as do you it seems.

As for witch hunting and crusades they are effective in terms of showing the ultimate consequence of fanatical belief in one's own infallibility when it comes to bible reading. Consider for effect Clirus on these boards who claims genocide is good and just, so long as christians do the slaughter in a theocratic nation. She believes she's right. And she tends to agree with other literalists rather vehemently.

i was unaware that "evolutionists" are ever 'loosing".

 

[1611AV]

A question? One that even you will consider "valid"? Ok, how about this one:

Given that Jesus, his disciples, the Gospel writers, and the early church up to about AD 70-80 were all observant Jews, doesn't it make more sense to read and interpret the "New" Testament with a Jewish paradigm, rather than attempt to retorfit (some might argue hijack) the Hebrew Scriptures into a modern Christian one?

I've seen you say this a few times. What do you mean by it exactly? I wouldn't mind discussing it.

Jesus was born in the form a sinless "Jewish" man according to the flesh. But He is 100% God according to the Spirit.

Jesus did not observe the Sabbath according to Jewish law.

There were no Christians until the resurrection of Jesus. All where under the law until then.

The Jews as a Nation are blinded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, We Christians are not. So why would we give up the sight that is within us for blindness?

Or do you not know that it is Jesus the Bible is speaking of in the OT?

 

[TheReasoner]

i was unaware that "evolutionists" are ever 'loosing".

In the mind of a creationist whatever doesn't agree with them is loosing to their superior correctness.

As demonstrated by mr. Kent Hovind, one of their chief advocates and main authorities, in his extreme eloquence as revealed by his "PhD" "thesis". And I quote:
"Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high-school teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for some time."
It's filled with other nuggets like that.

This is a quote from the opening of his "thesis". And that's one of the most prominent, most highly thought of creatiovangelists around. I think they cut him a little loose after he was arrested and convicted of tax fraud, but I don't know.

I neglected to mention the whole "when we're winning the evolutionists do..." comment simply because of this quoted behavior which - while present in the higher echelons of creationism is even more present further down. To say "Er. We're not wrong" would have invited a response akin to that of a kindergardener going "Nuh-huuh!"
Consider their argumentation technique and content. Not to mention the source of their arguments (one major one's thesis was just quoted)

These people have NO backing. I guess a lot of them know so in the marrow of their bones, a small amount of critical thought should certainly reveal as much, which for many leads to dirt flinging, for example by labelling scientists 'morons', or coming up with other arguments like 'Einstein got DIVORCED!!!!111!1', assumption of personal infallibility and other logical fallacies of rather extreme proportions.

But hey. They're winning. I can't contest that they are. If we set the system within which we operate to "their minds" that is.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I've seen you say this a few times. What do you mean by it exactly? I wouldn't mind discussing it.

It's really quite simple -- Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were all Jews. The writers of the Gospels were all Jews.

Christianity wasn't even recognized as a separate religion for decades after Jesus' death. Nothing was written down about Jesus until about 30-40 years after the end of his (earthly) life. Until then, his stories were passed down orally -- and liturgically, in the Jewish center of society and faith -- the Synagogue.

And yet, there are still Christians arrogant enough to believe that the Old Testament -- the sum total of the Jewish faith -- means nothing more than a prelude for their own.

I find it a very distastful thing to hijack another culture's beliefs and claim them as secondary to one's own -- worse still to impose one's own ideology over it, stripping it of its original meaning in order to better suit one's agenda.

I say this because Genesis, we must remember, is a Hebrew document, and yet, in my experience, I've never met a Jew who took it literally -- YEC has always been an evangelical Christian belief.

I'm curious why you think that is.

Jesus was born in the form a sinless "Jewish" man according to the flesh. But He is 100% God according to the Spirit.

The Jews say otherwise. Just sayin'.

Jesus did not observe the Sabbath according to Jewish law.

And even he misquoted the Scriptures when he defended that.

There were no Christians until the resurrection of Jesus. All where under the law until then.

And even then, Christianity was seen, both by its adherents and outsiders, as a subsect of Judaism, not a separate religion, until, IIRC, sometime around AD 70-80.

What you're referring to is the more "modern" constructions of Christianity which didn't fall into place until sometime around the medieval period.

The Jews as a Nation are blinded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, We Christians are not. So why would we give up the sight that is within us for blindness?

And yet you have no difficulty using their "blind" documents to suit your own purposes -- and then have the gall to tell them they don't even know their own religion.

Talk about distasteful -- you* insult them even as you exploit them.

*I use "you" here in the collective sense -- plenty of Christians do this.

Or do you not know that it is Jesus the Bible is speaking of in the OT?

I don't "know" it because I do not believe it -- nor do the Jews, and nor does anyone who reads the OT or the NT with knowledge of Jewish culture, history, or context.

Are you sure you want a discussion on this, or do you fear it to the point that you will go out of your way to avoid it all together because of the answers you may get?

 

[Hespera]

It's really quite simple -- Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were all Jews. The writers of the Gospels were all Jews.

Christianity wasn't even recognized as a separate religion for decades after Jesus' death. Nothing was written down about Jesus until about 30-40 years after the end of his (earthly) life. Until then, his stories were passed down orally -- and liturgically, in the Jewish center of society and faith -- the Synagogue.

And yet, there are still Christians arrogant enough to believe that the Old Testament -- the sum total of the Jewish faith -- means nothing more than a prelude for their own.

I find it a very distastful thing to hijack another culture's beliefs and claim them as secondary to one's own -- worse still to impose one's own ideology over it, stripping it of its original meaning in order to better suit one's agenda.

I say this because Genesis, we must remember, is a Hewbrew document, and yet, in my experience, I've never met a Jew who took it literally -- YEC has always been an evangelical Christian belief.

I'm curious why you think that is.



The Jews say otherwise. Just sayin'.



And even he misquoted the Scriptures when he defended that.



And even then, Christianity was seen, both by its adherents and outsiders, as a subsect of Judaism, not a separate religion, until, IIRC, sometime around AD 70-80.

What you're referring to is the more "modern" constructions of Christianity which didn't fall into place until sometime around the medieval period.



And yet you have no difficulty using their "blind" documents to suit your own purposes -- and then have the gall to tell them they don't even know their own religion.

Talk about distasteful -- you* insult them even as you exploit them.

*I use "you" here in the collective sense -- plenty of Christians do this.



I don't "know" it because I do not believe it -- nor do the Jews, and nor does anyone who reads the OT or the NT with knowledge of Jewish culture, history, or context.

Are you sure you want a discussion on this, or do you fear it to the point that you will go out of your way to avoid it all together because of the answers you may get?

I find it a very distastful thing to hijack another culture's beliefs and claim them as secondary to one's own -- worse still to impose one's own ideology over it, stripping it of its original meaning in order to better suit one's agenda.

I find very distateful the idea of adopting someone elses culture as if it were my own or their history were my history. After the romans, seems like it really only worked with conquered people, or those with a weak cultures.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find very distateful the idea of adopting someone elses culture as if it were my own or their history were my history.

Are we Christians adopted children of God?

(Just a YES or NO will suffice please; it's a binary question.)

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Are we Christians adopted children of God?

(Just a YES or NO will suffice please; it's a binary question.)

No, but you like to think you are. It tends to give one a sense of egocentric significance when they convince themselves that a supernatural agent has somehow bestowed their attention on them.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, but you like to think you are. It tends to give one a sense of egocentric significance when they convince themselves that a supernatural agent has somehow bestowed their attention on them.

Oh, really?

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Ye are brought into the family of God by adoption; and the agent that brought you into this family is the Holy Spirit; and this very Spirit continues to witness to you the grace in which ye stand, by enabling you to call God your Father, with the utmost filial confidence and affection.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Oh, really?

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

As I said, you like to think you are. Unless you have evidence to back up your claim, I consider it to be unreasonable and baseless in it's assertion.

You must first prove that there is a god, and further he has an interest in adopting you, and finally, that any adoption takes place in any real sense of the word's meaning.

Honestly, your circular reasoning is no better than a childs.

 

[Gracchus]

Or.

5) IT IS, AS GOD SAYS IT IS.

I'll go with 5

In the beginning GOD...

Well, of course God must be right... but you could be wrong about what God says. Considering some of your previous posts, it seems not only possible, but extremely probable that you are wrong.