Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[1611AV]

So what did Jesus mean by a whale? How do you know?

Glad you asked. Not only does the Bible tell us that the great fish was a whale that swallowed Jonah, but that the Lord prepared the great fish for this very job.

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

We know it was a Whale because the same Lord that prepared it spoke of it.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

We take God at His Word.

Colossians 1:26 Even the MYSTERY which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yet Jesus himself made it central to his ministry. when ministering to a evil and adulterous generation concerning His Gospel. They seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

I'll go with God on this one. As usual.

Whoa -- central? Not allegorical?

As in, "unless the event he was referring to actually literally historically happened, it means nothing?"

Seems to me that a man used to teaching lessons in parables would be comfortable using stories that his audience was familiar with to make his point.

But hey, if you want to make this reference the central tenet of your belief, that's your business.

Are people who don't agree any less Christian than yourself?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Glad you asked. Not only does the Bible tell us that the great fish was a whale that swallowed Jonah, but that the Lord prepared the great fish for this very job.

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

We know it was a Whale because the same Lord that prepared it spoke of it.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

We take God at His Word.

Matthew is God?

 

[Tiberius]

Not so fast...

The basic instincts of animals are self preservation, self gratification, and self propagation. But no animal practices self justification or self righteousness.

Maybe because those are instincts that come from being a part of a complex social group?

Evolution is a religion designed to provide pagans justification for their animalistic life. (Romans 1:18-32; 2 Thess. 2:10-12) All men will face the judgement of God, but no animal faces judgement (Matt 12:36-37; Rom 2:16; Heb 9:27).

Ah, so atheists don't have self righteousness (because you said that is a Humanistic quality, not an animalistic one)? Same for self justification?

As for the the plants in Genesis 1. By reading chp. 2 you will see that God had already created the plants before he ever put them in the earth.


Genesis 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

Genesis 2:5 kinda kills the evolution thing. Biblically speaking.

Context, context, context...

Anmd if you read that very same passage carefully, you'll see that the Bible is refering ONLY TO THE PLANTS OF THE FIELD! It is talking about crops!

 

[Tiberius]

If God was talking to the ground here ...

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

What was He talking to here?

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Dunno. Maybe the universe?

Now, AV, would you be so kind as to reply to this:

Why is it that we can have tectonic activity that suggests that mountains have been growing and eroding for many thousands of years, radio dating that suggests that radioactive isotopes have been decaying for millions of years and cosmological evidence that suggests the universe has been expanding for billions of years, but we can't have genetic and fossil evidence that suggests that life has been evolving for millions of years (what you call macroevolution)?

I mean, if the evidence suggests that rocks have been around for millions of years (even if you say they were created only a few thousand years ago), doesn't the evidence also suggest that life has been evolving for millions of years (even if you think that life was created only a few thousand years ago)?

In short, shouldn't you accept and agree that an examination of the real world supports the idea of macroevolution?

 

[Mr Dave]

I have answered but I'll do it again in a different way. A Christian that believes in ToE must discount the Word of God to accept the ToE. As Mr. Dave has illustrated. On what scripture in the Bible does a Christian base his Christianity? On the God of the Holy Bible or the God of his imagination?

Woah woah woah, hang on a sec, I do not discount the word of God! When have I done that. Understanding passage differently to you is the complete opposite of discounting it, I most certainly count all passages, your understanding is not the yard-stick by which to judge all other understanding. You can be flawed as me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, AV, would you be so kind as to reply to this:

1. Why is it that we can have tectonic activity that suggests that mountains have been growing and eroding for many thousands of years...

1A) You have tectonic activity -- the suggestion that mountains have been growing and eroding for many thousands of years is just that: a suggestion.

2. ... radio dating that suggests that radioactive isotopes have been decaying for millions of years ...

2A) You have radio dating -- the suggestion that radioactive isotopes have been decaying for millions of years is just that: a suggestion.

3. ... cosmological evidence that suggests the universe has been expanding for billions of years ...

3A) You have cosmological evidence -- the suggestion that the universe has been expanding for millions of years is just that: a suggestion.

 

[Mr Dave]

Yet Jesus himself made it central to his ministry. when ministering to a evil and adulterous generation concerning His Gospel. They seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

I'll go with God on this one. As usual.

How is this 'central' when it appears in one of the four gospels. Are not salvation, the KoG, and other such things that which is 'central to His ministry'.

 

[Tiberius]

1. Why is it that we can have tectonic activity that suggests that mountains have been growing and eroding for many thousands of years...

1A) You have tectonic activity -- the suggestion that mountains have been growing and eroding for many thousands of years is just that: a suggestion.

2. ... radio dating that suggests that radioactive isotopes have been decaying for millions of years ...

2A) You have radio dating -- the suggestion that radioactive isotopes have been decaying for millions of years is just that: a suggestion.

3. ... cosmological evidence that suggests the universe has been expanding for billions of years ...

3A) You have cosmological evidence -- the suggestion that the universe has been expanding for millions of years is just that: a suggestion.

Once again you avoid the heart of the argument by focussing your attention on the tiny details.

Feel free to read "is evidence of" or "indicates" instead of suggests.

Now would you please actually address the issue?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Glad you asked. Not only does the Bible tell us that the great fish was a whale that swallowed Jonah, but that the Lord prepared the great fish for this very job.

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

We know it was a Whale because the same Lord that prepared it spoke of it.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

We take God at His Word.

Colossians 1:26 Even the MYSTERY which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

The greek word, ketos, according to strong's can mean whale, great fish, or sea monster. So what did Jesus mean, and how do you know? What word did he use in aramaic? What justification did the people 400 years ago have to translate it 'whale'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again you avoid the heart of the argument by focussing your attention on the tiny details.

Feel free to read "is evidence of" or "indicates" instead of suggests.

Now would you please actually address the issue?

Ya -- it's 'evidence of...' because you guys say it is 'evidence of...'

As the Bible says, faith is the evidence of things not seen, and you guys certainly demonstrate that.

 

[Tiberius]

Ah, now you are reduced to word games. Are you trying to get out of a tough spot by being silly?

An examination of the real world shows that macroevolution takes place. Just as an examination of the real world shows that it is billions of years old. Even if, according to your "embedded age" idea it only appears to be billions of years old (and please don't get snarky about my exact wording here, you know perfectly well what I mean). So doesn't it follow that an examination of life, the fossil record and genetic information would show that macroevolution has occured?

After all, if rocks can have the appearance of having radioactively decayed over billions of years, shouldn't life have the appearance of having evolved over billions of years as well?

I mean, the only limiting factor you've mentioned when it comes to evolution is time. But that certainly hasn't prevented rocks from appearing billions of years old.

So, when you get down to it, shouldn't you conclude that all the evidence we have from the real world shows that macroevolution has occured, even if you believe that this history of evolving is part of your embedded age idea? After all, it's no different to you believing that all the evidence we have from the real world shows that the world is billions of years old, even if you believe that this history of billions of years is part of your embedded age idea, is it?

 

[1611AV]

The greek word, ketos, according to strong's can mean whale, great fish, or sea monster. So what did Jesus mean, and how do you know? What word did he use in aramaic? What justification did the people 400 years ago have to translate it 'whale'?

I see your point. I take the Word of God as is according to the scriptures. If the Bible says whale, I go with whale. Thats all I can do.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean, the only limiting factor you've mentioned when it comes to evolution is time. But that certainly hasn't prevented rocks from appearing billions of years old.

I believe I mentioned another one as well.

I'm under the impression that scientists, in their desire to correlate everything, have developed ways of interpreting wrinkles and such in nature as 'old-age spots'.

Thus tree rings, for example, even though they may grow one ring per year today -- if it has 500 rings in it -- is assumed to be 500 years old.

This way, scientists can assume the past, even though they were never actually there to observe it.

And -- thanks mainly to computers -- everything today seems to run like legwork; like a well-oiled machine, giving scientists a coherent look into the early stages of the universe -- until they come to one major stumblingblock: the Bible.

And the Bible is sooo not science, and sooo doesn't fit their computer models, they need to either reinterpret the Bible, or reject It altogether.

And, of course, the Bible's followers -- (that's us) -- get reinterpreted or rejected as well.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I see your point. I take the Word of God as is according to the scriptures. If the Bible says whale, I go with whale. Thats all I can do.

And I hope you can see that a fellow literalist may say it says 'sea monster' and thus be a Bible-believing Christian without answer your original question 'yes'.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I believe I mentioned another one as well.

I'm under the impression that scientists, in their desire to correlate everything, have developed ways of interpreting wrinkles and such in nature as 'old-age spots'.

Thus tree rings, for example, even though they may grow one ring per year today -- if it has 500 rings in it -- is assumed to be 500 years old.

This way, scientists can assume the past, even though they were never actually there to observe it.

And -- thanks mainly to computers -- everything today seems to run like legwork; like a well-oiled machine, giving scientists a coherent look into the early stages of the universe -- until they come to one major stumblingblock: the Bible.

And the Bible is sooo not science, and sooo doesn't fit their computer models, they need to either reinterpret the Bible, or reject It altogether.

And, of course, the Bible's followers -- (that's us) -- get reinterpreted or rejected as well.

And by these standards you can't prove there was anything beyond last Thursday.

 

[Tiberius]

I believe I mentioned another one as well.

I'm under the impression that scientists, in their desire to correlate everything, have developed ways of interpreting wrinkles and such in nature as 'old-age spots'.

Thus tree rings, for example, even though they may grow one ring per year today -- if it has 500 rings in it -- is assumed to be 500 years old.

This way, scientists can assume the past, even though they were never actually there to observe it.

And -- thanks mainly to computers -- everything today seems to run like legwork; like a well-oiled machine, giving scientists a coherent look into the early stages of the universe -- until they come to one major stumblingblock: the Bible.

And the Bible is sooo not science, and sooo doesn't fit their computer models, they need to either reinterpret the Bible, or reject It altogether.

And, of course, the Bible's followers -- (that's us) -- get reinterpreted or rejected as well.

You aren't being very clear here...

I mean, the first limiting factor you explained clearly: Macroevolution can not have occured because there hasn't been enough time.

Not so here...

So could you sum up the above argument for me by completing this sentence...

Macroevolution could not have occured because...

 

[AV1611VET]

And by these standards you can't prove there was anything beyond last Thursday.

If last Thursday was 6100 years ago, you are correct.

 

[Mr Dave]

No, I have looked at hundreds or thousands of claims and every one is just as unbased as the next. You are misinformed.

What would be some of these hundreds of unbased claims upon which I keep myself misinformed.

 

[TheReasoner]

No, I have looked at hundreds or thousands of claims and every one is just as unbased as the next. You are misinformed.

What claims would that be?
ANd how thoroughly did you go through these hundreds of thousands of claims, and with what academic background?

I sincerely doubt you've had the time to go through so many claims to a greater extent than noting it is a claim.