Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[AV1611VET]

and what exactly is "Scripture"?

"Scripture" is God's word to us in written form.

It is a specific line of translations beginning with the autographs --- interfacing in the AV96 translation --- and continuing from there thru the Gothic to the English, with the King James as the final version.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, someone here can correct me if i'm wrong, but if he did say that, is he wrong as well? He is a Saint afterall and one of Christianity's most devout followers.

No comment.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I truly dont see how you guys do it. Ive only been a member a short time, and Im already fed up with his garbage, his empty assertions, his completely unfounded "bible=science" statements and his outright LACK of any empirical evidence whatsoever (and inability to actually "debate" on topic)
I really dont see any reason to waste my time with him anymore. I guess you CF veterans must be MUCH more patient than I am.


if it wasn't for people like him, we would be talking to ourselves, which is kind of boring and uninteresting. be thankful for his presence otherwise we would have to go to GA for our daily fix of controversial postings.

 

[Tomk80]

Wasn't it St. Augustine who said that if the Bible disagrees with science, the Bible is being misinterpreted?

Not exactly, but close.

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]) "With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

Especially the last, bolded part is important.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is a specific line of translations beginning with the autographs --- interfacing in the AV96 translation --- and continuing from there thru the Gothic to the English, with the King James as the final version.

Gothic???
60% of the KJV is directly from the Genevan Bible. There is no relationship of the Gothic translation of Ulfilas to any of the texts that either the Genevan Bible translators used or The KJV translators used. where does this stuff come from? is there a little pixie going to conservative churches and leaving tracts on the tables?

btw.
what is this AV96 translation?
The early church used the LXX and the Greek writings that became the NT until the rise of Latin with the Papacy in Rome(mid to late 4thC), and then it was Jerome's Vulgate.

 

[Tomk80]

It is a specific line of translations beginning with the autographs --- interfacing in the AV96 translation --- and continuing from there thru the Gothic to the English, with the King James as the final version.

Gothic???
60% of the KJV is directly from the Genevan Bible. There is no relationship of the Gothic translation of Ulfilas to any of the texts that either the Genevan Bible translators used or The KJV translators used. where does this stuff come from? is there a little pixie going to conservative churches and leaving tracts on the tables?

I've got the idea that knowing anything about the history of the book you are using as your holy book seems to be considered a sin by a growing number of conservative christians.

What is it with their obsession over the KJV 1611 edition anyway? I mean, newer translations have been made that follow the original jewish and greek much closer than the KJV 1611 version does. Is it the semi-archaic language that is used that gives it some air of authority (same in the Netherlands by the way, where people swear by the 'Staten vertaling'. Doesn't matter it is less accurate and harder to understand then newer versions. It just sounds so much more 'official'.)

 

[Beastt]

"Scripture" is God's word to us in written form.

Not quite.
Scripture is the writing of men with the claim that it was inspired by God. This is the same claim for pretty much every bible written and every god for which a bible has been written.

You choose to accept this claim for the Christian God and to deny it for all of the rest, including those of which you have no knowledge.

 

[Jase]

No comment.

Glad to know you're open to discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a specific line of translations beginning with the autographs --- interfacing in the AV96 translation --- and continuing from there thru the Gothic to the English, with the King James as the final version.

Gothic???
60% of the KJV is directly from the Genevan Bible. There is no relationship of the Gothic translation of Ulfilas to any of the texts that either the Genevan Bible translators used or The KJV translators used. where does this stuff come from? is there a little pixie going to conservative churches and leaving tracts on the tables?

btw.
what is this AV96 translation?
The early church used the LXX and the Greek writings that became the NT until the rise of Latin with the Papacy in Rome(mid to late 4thC), and then it was Jerome's Vulgate.

Yes, Gothic.

The Septuagint is a fake document (Origen's Hexapla).

• LXX means 70, not 72.
  Only those of the tribe of Levi could copy Scripture, not 6 from each tribe.
  Jews were forbidden by God to go to Egypt.

And answer me this: which Greek? Classical or Koine?

 

[Jase]

I've got the idea that knowing anything about the history of the book you are using as your holy book seems to be considered a sin by a growing number of conservative christians.

What is it with their obsession over the KJV 1611 edition anyway? I mean, newer translations have been made that follow the original jewish and greek much closer than the KJV 1611 version does. Is it the semi-archaic language that is used that gives it some air of authority (same in the Netherlands by the way, where people swear by the 'Staten vertaling'. Doesn't matter it is less accurate and harder to understand then newer versions. It just sounds so much more 'official'.)

There is a thread about this topic in GA debate, where AV essentially says the Hebrew scriptures are worthless cause he can't read them. The KJV is the supreme authority.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not quite.
Scripture is the writing of men with the claim that it was inspired by God. This is the same claim for pretty much every bible written and every god for which a bible has been written.

Tell that to the prophets of Baal, whom I sure would love to have their meeting with Elijah over again.

You choose to accept this claim for the Christian God and to deny it for all of the rest, including those of which you have no knowledge.

Pharaoh had the same attitude toward Moses, and paid dearly for sticking to it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Septuagint is a fake document (Origen's Hexapla).


i'm getting less and less certain that we even inhabit the same world. perhaps you are a alien on another planet that has monitored electronic communication from earth for the last 50 years and therefore have a substantially truncated understanding of human history. i suspect a problem from watching too many late night tele-evanglist programs, perhaps if you would just use the net a bit more for research.

the LXX is not a fake.
the majority of the quotations in the NT of the OT are from the LXX.

Origen himself used the LXX in writing the Hexapla.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/hexapla.htm


is it really lying if you make up the facts as you go along?

 

[Beastt]

I know that you are a reasonably intelligent person. The Bible does not say that the planet is flat.

You can say this over and over if that pleases you, John, but the Bible does say the planet is flat. If you don't believe that, there are two things you can do to confirm it. First, find a glossary on geometry terms and look up the word "circle". You'll find that the word "circle" describes a two dimensional object -- flat -- which is circular at its perimeter.

The second thing you can do is to set up a camping tent. Follow any instructions you might find on doing this. You'll want a nice, level, flat piece of ground. You'll not find anyone anywhere who suggests you look for a spherical plot upon which to pitch your tent.

(Isaiah 40:22) 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 dwell in;

(Job 28:24) For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.

(Daniel 4:10-11) The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.​

Now, I understand that you wish the Bible didn't say that the Earth is flat because we today know that it isn't. It's an oblate spheroid. But no one can blame the Bible's authors for not knowing that. They really had no way to determine the shape of the Earth and it certainly appears flat from the perspective of anyone standing on its surface. The problem, of course, is that you want to believe that the Bible was inspired by some all-knowing creator of the universe who would certainly know the true shape of the Earth. One can bury their head in the sand and chant over and over, "it doesn't say the Earth is flat, it doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't", but no matter how many times you say it, you'll never change what the Bible says. Leave that to the people in power over the church. Little by little they're covering these things up so that people like you can rest securely in your misconceptions. Already they've relieved God of the responsibility of creating evil. Eventually, they'll get around to fixing the description of the Earth.

The Bible does not say that the earth is the center of the universe. And so on. INFIDELS try to claim the Bible says these things. They try to propitiate these urban myths to slander and discredit christianity.

"Urban myths", John? Come now. It's rather difficult to categorize what the church itself taught for over 16-centuries as an "urban myth". If you had proclaimed that the Bible doesn't subscribe to geocentrism 500-years ago, your fellow Bible readers would be bringing marshmallows and hot dogs to a special gathering held in your honor. We could put your name beside that of Giordano Bruno, an Italian philosopher, born in 1548. Unfortunately for him, he subscribed to the Copernican configuration of the solar system and made his beliefs known. So your loving little church held a barbeque in his honor. He died among the flames, tied to a stake in 1600 after being tried and found guilty of heresy, for his anti-biblical beliefs.

Galileo himself was a bit more cautious but still found himself coming under attack by the church. In 1614 he was targeted in a sermon given by Tommaso Caccini, a Dominican friar, who denounced Galileo and all mathematicians in general, which included astronomers. The biblical text upon which the sermon was centered was Joshua 10, wherein the Bible claims the sun stood still.

Galileo, (1564-1642), proceeded cautiously, even meeting with leading church officials in Rome before writing his book. He was asked to include both the geocentric and heliocentric points of view and he complied. But the church found that his presentation of geocentric views were not represented in a sufficiently respectful manner and he was charged with heresy, tried, and convicted. He met a better fate than Bruno after agreeing to publicly denounce his findings concerning the heliocentric nature of the universe but was, after having his book removed from public access, sentenced to house arrest where he died 9-years later.

Copernicus, (1473-1543), also found that the Earth did not stand still, in contrast to the claims of the Bible. But he chose not to publish his findings because they contradicted the teachings of the Catholic church, based upon biblical scripture. Despite keeping a low profile, religious leaders of his time were outspoken against him. Martin Luther, (founder of the Lutheran church), referred to Copernicus as "the fool", who wanted to "overturn the science of astronomy". The book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libre VI, (Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs), was not published until the end of his life.

Then we have the reproductions of the Hebrew etchings which I know you've seen, (assuming you don't tightly close your eyes and chant "the Bible doesn't say that", everytime I post them).

This is the way those who spoke Hebrew as the native tongue depicted the description of the Earth and Heavens as given in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Without any knowledge of the true configuration of our solar system, and with only the Bible to go on, this is how they saw the world.

But all they are doing is knocking down their own strawman arguement.

Clearly, John, it's not a strawman argument. The church who believed the Bible to be the word of God, strongly defended the Bible's claim that the Earth was flat and stationary at the center of the universe. After 16-centuries, they still wouldn't accept the heliocentric configuration even when presented with the data, much as some today refuse to accept evolution, despite the data being conclusive.

Now, as a intelligent person I think that you can do better than this. I think you can set a higher standard of truth and creditability for yourself. But that is up to you if you want to deny the truth and lower yourself to using urban myths to defend your beliefs. Just do not try to put on a pretense that science is in any way associated with this sort of thing. This sort of slander would not even qualify as acceptable political science as far as I am concerned.

All you present, John, is nay-saying. I have the history of the church, the events surrounding the eventual defeat of the geocentric world-view and the scripture of the Bible to back up my claims. You have nothing, save your own tenacious beliefs and denials; which is pretty much what we're used to seeing from you -- a lot of talk, zero support.

Everyone gets to set their own standard. But I sure would not want to be associated with a standard that is based on urban myths.

It's not an urban myth, John, it's well documented and confirmable history. You can call it a myth if that eases your worries about the true origin of the Bible. But you'll never defeat reality through denial.

 

[JohnR7]

John, but the Bible does say the planet is flat.

Ok, well, there is no reason for us to go on with this then. We are just to far apart on what we believe. There just isn't enough common ground.

 

[JohnR7]

I sure would love to have their meeting with Elijah over again.

God is no respector of persons. What He did in Elijah's life, he can do in your life. Just be sure to watch out for Jezebel.

 

[Beastt]

Ok, well, there is no reason for us to go on with this then. We are just to far apart on what we believe. There just isn't enough common ground.

It's not a matter of lacking common ground. It's a matter of evidence. I can give you the scripture, show you the depictions based on the original Hebrew, give you the names, dates and fates surrounding the eventual acceptance of heliocentrism by the church and back up every word of it. You can offer nothing except your own need to believe otherwise.

No matter what you wish to believe, the Bible has been soundly thrashed by the demonstrable discoveries of science.

 

[JohnR7]

if it wasn't for people like him, we would be talking to ourselves, which is kind of boring and uninteresting. be thankful for his presence otherwise we would have to go to GA for our daily fix of controversial postings.

That is exactly it. The evos chase people off and then they sit around and talk to themselves untell someone else comes along so they can chase them off. In some strange and unexplainable way they think that makes them a winner if people do not want to be around them.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not an urban myth, John, it's well documented and confirmable history. You can call it a myth if that eases your worries about the true origin of the Bible. But you'll never defeat reality through denial.

Let's call the Earth what Jesus called it, shall we?

A pearl of great price - (Matthew 13:45).

Sounds like an orb to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

i'm getting less and less certain that we even inhabit the same world. perhaps you are a alien on another planet that has monitored electronic communication from earth for the last 50 years and therefore have a substantially truncated understanding of human history.

Either that, or I believe the Septuagint is a fake.

 

[JohnR7]

It's a matter of evidence.

Ok, lets take a look at your evidence.

First, find a glossary on geometry terms and look up the word "circle". You'll find that the word "circle" describes a two dimensional object -- flat, which is circular at its perimeter.

That is not what the Bible is talking about. Circle today would be translated orbit. A guard use to circle around the camp or the city to keep a watch on things. I was a carpenter for 25 years, so I know all about geometry and circles. That is not what the Bible is talking about here. So I am sorry to say you do not have any evidence to back up what your saying. As Peter says:

2 Peter 3:15b-16 also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, [16] as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

The Bible was given to show us the way of life. But not everybody finds their way.