Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[JohnR7]

And? Surely you don't think that The Bible fell down from heaven to be left at the mercy of the interpretation of every individual believer, right?

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God has given us His Holy Spirit to lead us in the way of truth and righteousness. He is our helper, comforter and so on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either that, or you're steering the discussion.

Excuse me?

You're accusing me of steering this off-topic?

Either way, enough already. Discuss it in the appropriate thread.

Are you telling ME this or the others?

Stay on topic.

You hypocrite --- you've got the nerve!

 

[AV1611VET]

NO, NO, NO

""...followed by perfect translation." = Psalm 12:7"

7. The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings, like silver refined, exposed to the earth, clarified sevenfold.

Now stop distorting Jewish scripture.

For the third time: Do you have a problem with God giving us His Word in English?

 

[dawiyd]

For the third time: Do you have a problem with God giving us His Word in English?

I've answered this.

 

[Nathan Poe]

For the third time: Do you have a problem with God giving us His Word in English?

As opposed to the language of his allegedly "chosen" people?

Sure, they're his people; so what if they can't understand him?

 

[TheBear]

There is nothing "lazy" about creationists or their science.


for not being lazy there appears to be an abnormally large number of new posters that come through here, posting Hovindisms, demonstrating that they know nothing about the science they criticize then disappearing when it is obvious that they are ignorant of the issues.

that appears to me to be intellectual laziness, especially when people seem unable to spend even a few minutes googling to see what the issues are ....

I couldn't agree more.

 

[vipertaja]

For the third time: Do you have a problem with God giving us His Word in English?

He also gave us the Koran, blessed he be. He's even offering alternatives!
Of course, the koran is much truer and more accurate than the KJV though.

 

[kopilo]

No --- if it was that easy --- Dell Comics would be printing the Bible.

LOL, it was too tempting to google "dell comics + bible" it's amazing what you find out there.

""Picture Stories from the Bible" collects stories from the 1940's comic book series of the same name. It was the brainchild of publisher M. C. Gaines, who is literally the man who invented the comic book in the early 1930's for Dell Publishing."

source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0934386021/103-9627480-7497429?v=glance&n=283155

 

[rmwilliamsll]

For the third time: Do you have a problem with God giving us His Word in English?


it depends on how you propose God gave it.
much like it's emphasis on miraculous and extraordinary supernatural means in the creation of the world, KJV-only see an analogous miracle to create the KJV.

Most people are happy to see God act providentially through ordinary secondary means to have the Scriptures go to the ends of the earth to every nation, kindred and tongue.

Dropping versions in various languages from heaven on high is not high on Wycliffe Translators list either, seeing as they put so much time, effort and money into secondary causes.

 

[Beastt]

That is exactly right. The Bible sets the standard for the truth. Just like a carpenter needs a few basic tools to get the job done. So with the Bible in effect we can say: That is not square, or that is not level or that is not plumb. They can argue against that but time is always on the side of the truth. In time the truth will always be known. People maybe able to get away with something for a short while, but time will catch up with them.

God only gives us so much time, and then that is it. That is why we need to make the best use we can of the little bit of time we are given.

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

And yet, as time goes on and more is discovered about the workings of nature, the more we find these workings to be in sharp contrast to the Bible, rather than in harmony with it.

 

[Beastt]

You really need to look into Noah's Flood. Recently National Geographics did a special on it. Even to this day the salt water and fresh water have not mixed. One is in a layer below the other. In fact, that is where science establishs their date for the flood is when there was a switch from fresh water to salt water fish. Of course the exactly moment in time when the fish went from being fresh water to sale water fish is a little bit difficult to determine. But science has a date they go by.

Of course the YEC's version of the flood may not hold water. But that does not fasify the Bible. As more information becomes available then Science helps us to better understand Noah's story in the Bible.

Ever own an aquarium, John?

 

[Tomk80]

If the time comes --- and I don't think it will --- He will give us another perfect translation. Until then, how about you help out with translating the AV1611 in one of those dialects? Okay. (Or at least help finance one?)

So, again, why aren't newer translations better? They should be, according to the logic you gave yourself. Why pretend efforts stopped in 1611?

 

[Beastt]

From a Q & A book I have:

That's very nice, AV1611VET. So you found someone who wrote a book which agrees with your view. Do you suppose there aren't sereral more which could be found that agree with your view? Do you suppose there aren't several which agree with my view?

Perhaps you can try looking past the unsupported claims of people and begin looking to the evidence. It's a dangerous move if you wish to maintain your beliefs. But if you want to know the truth and hold some compelling reason to believe it's the truth, then you're going to have to apply reason and logic instead of a game of "this author says".

You might also wish to note that the author of your quoted book, Donald B DeYoung, never touches on the scripture from the Old Testament and always points to the New Testament scriptures to support his views. That is of course, the only wise move for him to make since the Old Testament scripture would serve to show his assertions and claims of biblical scientific accuracy to be completely false.

 

[kopilo]

Doesn't it depend on the credibility of the author and the source itself?

Otherwise as previously stated it is just a popularity push and doesn't give a good reason to why someone should change their beleifs to fit in with the majority.

 

[Beastt]

Dawiyd, what do you have against God giving us His Word in English? After all, I'd like to know what He said just as much as the next guy.

And too, I'd kinda like to think He's still on the throne, making sure His Word is available to me. Is there a problem with that, or do the Hebrews just have a monopoly on His Words?

Another unsupportable assumption. What makes you think God gave us the Bible in English when any credible history lesson will reveal that men, not God, performed the translation?

 

[Beastt]

From God:

But you can't show that God wrote the Bible. It can be shown that men wrote it, translated it, edited it, translated it some more, marketed it, and told everyone who would listen that it was the word of God.

All you have is the word of men, not the word of God. Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference?

 

[kopilo]

But that, again, was not the point of what I said. Whether something is the best explanation of the current facts, doesn't change if someone rejects that. Whether people accept something as the best current explanation of certain facts, is of course something entirely different.

It was not meant to detract more then to add. You said "the evidence only counts", I was just trying to add that yes the evidence counts but the best current explanation will require persuasion in order to keep the readers interest.

BTW I am studying a psuedo science (computer/information Science) at uni, so I am aware of the difference between persuasion and biasness as well as the writting standards required by scientists when writing a journal, report etc. I think the minimum is something around 20 other sources per report (and that's just academic standards).

 

[kopilo]

All you have is the word of men, not the word of God. Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference?

Because he is a fundamentalist?

That said I do believe the original scripture was written by men but by God's words.

 

[Beastt]

Because he is a fundamentalist?

That said I do believe the original bible was written by men but by God's words.

Certainly a great many people believe that to be the case. But what I'm trying to demonstrate is why people believe that -- upon what do they base such a belief?

 

[JohnR7]

upon what do they base such a belief?

On the basis that it has been tested, tried and found to be true. If you do what the Bible says to do, it works and we get good results.