Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
first I have never claimed to be right and know the whole truth none of us will ever know the whole truth because scripture does not concern itself with the whole truth about everything even spiritual. It concerns itself with the information pertinent to our return to relationship.How do you prove that the message has remained entirely consistent without the originals? Especially when we have documented evidence of the English Bibles being drastically altered to preserve bias and political agendas. The 2nd most well-copied, authentic to the original manuscript in existence after the Bible is Homer's Illiad. Does the fact that it was extremely well preserved and copied prove that the Olympian gods are real, or that any of the mythological stories in that book are true?
Right back at you.
I agree with most the above but that is not the argument. The work of salvation belongs to only God. It's His purview. It is important to understand that the bible was not written for the unbeliever but for the believer, hence, why Jesus spoke in parables (See Matt. 13). The purpose of the bible is to serve as the standard for teaching in order for the Christian to be able to fulfill the great commission by making disciples. One needs to move from milk to meat. Just like any class has a textbook and the textbook must be reliable. In this case, the bible is the textbook and it is reliable. An unreliable book yields unreliable teaching.
Let me give you an example, the US secret service assigned to the counterfeit unit are taught how to spot a fake dollar bill by studying what a real dollar bill looks like and its properties. Without this knowledge their work would be hindered. It is the same regarding the scriptures. One can not spot the fake teachings if one does not have the standard. The scriptures are that standard.
Yes it is true the Secret Service does have such a unit and they are highly skilled at counterfeit detection. But there are some huge gaps in your analogy of them with biblical research and spotting counterfeits. First of all, the methods used to detect counterfeit currency involve well studied and factually proven scientific study which have resulted in effective and proven methods of testing the currency. These studies are can be reproduced by other researchers and will yield the same results over and over. For example the paper quality and source are among the first which are tested, then the dies, watermarks, holographic imaging, ...ect you get the picture. These can be demonstrated without much variation in results from one test to another. Most counterfeit cases do not rise and fall on the issue of if or if not the bills in question are counterfeit, but rather upon he intents and actions of the defendants in the case. How would you be able to achieve such a high level of "proof" without the original manuscripts (autographs) of the various books? How would you achieve such a high degree of certainty with your results when there are specific errors in the works which themselves show provably the works could not have been written word for word by god himself. If there is error, than they are the works of men, not a god. If they are then the works of men then we must recognize that we cannot base our beliefs upon a "literal" rendering of these books.
Sure, but again what is the standard? Most creeds are derived from scripture (hence the scripture quotes and backing) but the issue with creeds is that they are meant to be summaries of faith not the expanded version like the scriptures. Catechisms are also used to teach, however, they are for the most part interpretations derived from scripture by the denomination writing them. There are great variations of interpretation taught by the different catechisms available, hence, the need for a standard for comparison.
The creeds were also derived from the works, if the works were flowed, than the creeds may be flawed. Also, the creeds were as much political in nature as they were religious in that time period. They were possibly manipulated to achieve political as well as religious goals. This should come as no surprise to anyone as this happens even today, just take a look at the relationship between the extreme religious right and some groups such as the "tea party".
Before the canonical books were written the apostles carried the teaching authority. Their teachings were the standard. One feature of their teaching was quoting frequently from the teachings of the OT. The reason was the commonality of the teachings and the fact that it was written. It was then the standard. Once the NT was completed and the apostles died then the scriptures became the teaching authority and the standard.
And perhaps if you could produce those "original" works or "Autographs" we could accept them as being the words of the Apostles, but without them we are left to speculate regarding what was added and taken away from the books we have. There is also the matter regarding books which were rejected and that never made it to the councils to be rejected because the Roman Catholic church ordered them burned. The early church ( and likely the modern one too ) feared any writings which contradicted THEIR teachings. Thus any other voices had to be silenced, even at the point of a sword. This happened many times during the church's history.
The Nicene Creed was not written by an authority like an apostle but by men that were not witnesses of Christ. It does not claim infallibility, however, it is derived strictly from the standard (scripture). It was intended as a summary of beliefs that were used at the time to define orthodoxy and, along with scripture, to battle heresy.
One man's heresy is another man's deeply held religious convictions. Unless you posses the "proof" that yours is correct and theirs incorrect than to say it is otherwise is simply wishful thinking. Where is your evidence? We do not have the "Autographs" ( original manuscripts written by the original authors of the books that make up the bible). There is a great deal of agreement among scholars that many of the books of the bible were not written by the people to whom they were ascribed. Also there is debate as to the authority of Paul to even write as he was not as you put it a witness to Christ ministry and death as were the real Apostles. His claim to authority comes only by his own assertions. Just something to ponder.
Its a matter of reliability and consistency. Consistency flows from reliability. If the teachings is not reliable then the teaching lacks consistency. The argument is not about believing in Christ because the bible is infallible (that is God's purview) but to believe that the bible is infallible because one believes in an infallible Christ. First one must believe in Christ otherwise the bible has no spiritual meaning or reason. It's then just another book just like the arguments put forth by atheists.
What you are saying is to basically bury ones head in the sand and ignore the facts which are evidenced all around us, such as that the earth rotates around the sun and not the other way around as it says in several places in the bible that the "earth is fixed and does not move". Or that we should ignore the fossil record and believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as man?...lol Or that earth is really only 5-6,000 years old when we have clear evidence to the
contrary? This would appear quite foolish by the standards of most educated people.
Secondly, I don't believe that what the bible says it true simply because I want the bible to be true but because I believe in Jesus Christ of which the bible is a witness of. Again, if I don't have a standard then how can I know what Jesus accomplished including the atonement? How can I know the attributes of the God I worship? After all, the bible doesn't merely say "trust me" but is goes beyond that. It tells us who the real God is. To have the wrong impression of God opens the possibilities of worshiping the wrong god or idols. The bible teaches this over and over.
I do not believe the two are irreconcilable. Even if we proved that the bible held errors and such was accepted as true, we could still deduce that there were major themes which went throughout the bible and did not appear to contradict one another or appear to have been added or placed there to reflect the social norms of the society in which the authors lived. For example the fact that there is one god and only one god is a consistent and constant theme which runs from Genesis through Revelations. That can be accepted since it is not questionable in any sense within the bible. That there were only 12 Apostles also seems to be factual since it appears consistently the same throughout the New Testament. The fact that the earth was created by god is also apparently incontestable, how he did so or over what time frame is up for debate, thus god may have used evolution as his means of creation. There are more but this gives you a starting point to see what I am pointing out to you.
I discussed most of this above. It is a matter of reliability. Using your example about the books of Charlemagne, both gave you an idea of the real Charlemagne but only on broad terms. By your own admission, they only tell you a lot about him but leaves out a lot about him. The bible, on the other hand, teaches exactly who Jesus was and what He accomplished for us.
The bible ( except for some that were band by one of the church councils ), leaves out a lot about the life of Jesus. For example his entire childhood is barely mentioned in the bible. Aside from a very small passage virtually nothing is said about his childhood. A very interesting fact which leads to many very interesting questions.
Also, you are them taking upon yourself to determine what is true and what isn't.
I think they call that "thinking for yourself". It is called FREEDOM!!!! You essentially believe in a cave mentality, "don't look around you might not believe everything we tell you". When people stop thinking for themselves they start letting others do it for them and that leads to abusive power and dictatorships. Popes and Kings have used such thinking to control the populations, not for the good of the people but to increase their own power and wealth at the expense of the people. I doubt anyone really wants to live that way now days..lol
Simple if God dictated it the evidence would show that everything in it was exactly correct. So god would never dictate something so ridiculous like that the "earth was fixed and did not move" or that the "sun moved". God would know better and would not make such assertions. If he is all knowing surely he knows basic science. These gaffes illustrate that the bible was not written by god but by mortals as it is flawed just as mortals are flawed. The work of a perfect being would be well...perfect.explain to me why it was not dictated because both of these reasons have nothing to do with dictation. What does the bible being dictated have to do with no two people agreeing. Like if God dictated it everyone would have the understanding. and the second how does having copy errors after 4,000 years of copying and doctrinal rewriting have to do with the dictation. If I dictated something it does not mean that it will be the same 4000 years after coping and recopying. The fact that it has gone trough so much copy-edit and still holds the same message with accuracy is amazing.
This argument has nothing to do with dictation.
And it amazes me how people think that they know the truth.
Of course not. You will clearly see that bacteria remain bacteria, that adaptation is a coded process and that testing in random mutation is negative, codes do not write themselves, houses cannot be built randomly etc. Have a look. Btw, nowhere in the bible avocates geocentricity. The word used in most earlier texts is "unshakable". This is, and always has been, a reference to power, and the subjugation of other forces to the highest.What you are saying is to basically bury ones head in the sand and ignore the facts which are evidenced all around us,
Of course not. You will clearly see that bacteria remain bacteria, that adaptation is a coded process and that testing in random mutation is negative, codes do not write themselves, houses cannot be built randomly etc. Have a look. Btw, nowhere in the bible avocates geocentricity. The word used in most earlier texts is "unshakable". This is, and always has been, a reference to power, and the subjugation of other forces to the highest.
I don't know what your issue is with Darwinism, but it really detracts from the conversation seeing as it's entirely irrelevant.Have you bothered to study the greek texts. The text on the origin of heroes like Hercules. This all traces back to the beginning, where man was created, and the events which succeeded such, giving rise to these manner of men. But of course, given a Darwinian time line and dictation (as Darwin clearly saw men arising from beasts) you warrant casting them aside. Bt this is only given, based on the fact that study is neglected, or that the source of perception is Darwinism.
Science does not involve belief. My basis is based on solid evidentiary support.And thats the basis of it all. Thats your belief.
The Bible most certainly supports geocentrism. Heliocentrism didn't exist yet, and the Church adamantly opposed ever accepting Galileo's proposal of heliocentrism on the grounds that it contradicted the Biblical view.Of course not. You will clearly see that bacteria remain bacteria, that adaptation is a coded process and that testing in random mutation is negative, codes do not write themselves, houses cannot be built randomly etc. Have a look. Btw, nowhere in the bible avocates geocentricity. The word used in most earlier texts is "unshakable". This is, and always has been, a reference to power, and the subjugation of other forces to the highest.
Simple if God dictated it the evidence would show that everything in it was exactly correct. So god would never dictate something so ridiculous like that the "earth was fixed and did not move" or that the "sun moved". God would know better and would not make such assertions. If he is all knowing surely he knows basic science. These gaffes illustrate that the bible was not written by god but by mortals as it is flawed just as mortals are flawed. The work of a perfect being would be well...perfect.
Of course not. You will clearly see that bacteria remain bacteria,
that adaptation is a coded process
and that testing in random mutation is negative,
codes do not write themselves,
houses cannot be built randomly etc. Have a look.
Btw, nowhere in the bible avocates geocentricity.
The word used in most earlier texts is "unshakable". This is, and always has been, a reference to power, and the subjugation of other forces to the highest
Nope. It's right there. In some cases, the world is actually referring to people. As in the case when Michael Jackson said "we are the world" he didnt think that people were spherical terrestrial bodies. In other cases, it is denoting power. As in "the rivers raise their voices" Why is it that the atheist never presents the argument that the rivers don have voices thus proving Darwinism. Or in the case of "greater than the voice of the ocean, transcending the waves of the sea" Did you also "debunk" talking oceans? "Let the fields exult and all that is in them let all the woodland trees cry out for joy" Did you debunk crying trees? Why can't you guys come forward with these? Regardless, these are references to power. A firm house is a sign of power, while one that falls on shoddy foundations and is swayed by any force is a sign of ineptitude. This is the message. Unshakable. Cannot be moved. In Psalm 103:19 Yahweh has fixed his throne in the heavens, his empire is over all. Psalm 93:2 "You have made the world firm, unshakable: your throne has stood since then". Both are about the power, and the position of the "empire" among others.I think if you look back you are incorrect. The word used in the text has multiple meanings as do many words in Hebrew. I have heard this argument before and "unshakable" has been proposed before, but when viewed against other Hebrew text and the context of the text is taken into account the proper rendering of the word is closer to "fixed" than "unshakable", both of which could be said to be untrue. The passage does indeed attempt to say that the earth does not move. You are grasping at straws.
Is this a joke! The sun moves the earth moves every celestial body moves. It is all a matter of relativity,perspective and context. Someone speaking from an earthly perceptive would see the sun moving around the earth (and use it as perspective for it's purpose), someone looking from outside our solar system would see the planets moving around the sun. Someone looking from the edge of the galaxy wold see the sun and the earth moving around the center of our spiral galaxy, someone from the center of the universe would probably see the galaxy moving away and since science has only been able to see 13 billion years into the universe in all directions we can only assume that we are the center because that is what science can prove. We still do this today we don't say the earth will makes it full rotation in USA EST at 6:08 am we say sunrise and sunset do you think the people at the whether channel don't know, if history continued past 4000 from now and people found literature from today they would probably think, those idiots they had satellites and did not figure out that the earth goes around the sun. Or would you figure it as a matter of perspective. If you were talking to someone in the back woods of no where were they did not understand science you could still dictate to them. But if you did it in an incomprehensible way what good would the literature do. Again it goes back to scriptures purpose. God dictated and inspired the word so that we could understand it trough out history not just when science caught up, so that we used it for it's purpose not to explain cosmology (that said it is accurate in its telling when taken in context.). Perfect example is the creation account Gen 1 account is from his point for part and then from His point of view on earth. His principal metaphor for himself is light is that perfectly what he is. Probably not but he told them that is how you can describe me. Does that mean he does not know what he is? No, it means we don't understand and it is irrelevant if we do. It is beyond the purpose of scripture. So I guess I don't see it as that simple.
Nope. It's right there. In some cases, the world is actually referring to people. As in the case when Michael Jackson said "we are the world" he didnt think that people were spherical terrestrial bodies. In other cases, it is denoting power. As in "the rivers raise their voices" Why is it that the atheist never presents the argument that the rivers don have voices thus proving Darwinism. Or in the case of "greater than the voice of the ocean, transcending the waves of the sea" Did you also "debunk" talking oceans? "Let the fields exult and all that is in them let all the woodland trees cry out for joy" Did you debunk crying trees? Why can't you guys come forward with these? Regardless, these are references to power. A firm house is a sign of power, while one that falls on shoddy foundations and is swayed by any force is a sign of ineptitude. This is the message. Unshakable. Cannot be moved. In Psalm 103:19 Yahweh has fixed his throne in the heavens, his empire is over all. Psalm 93:2 "You have made the world firm, unshakable: your throne has stood since then". Both are about the power, and the position of the "empire" among others.
But if as you say it was written in a way that early man could understand, it had to be written in a manner that was not intended to be read as "literal". Therefore the creation was not created in six literal 24 hour days...ect. While you are correct that all celestial bodies do move, the clear intent of that passage was to convey the understanding that the earth did not move and that the sun did move. There are other things in the Old Testament such as the Arch and the Great Flood. Does one really suppose that a wooden ship with the dimensions given in the text could hold two of every species of living things? What about incest do you know how many of these alone exist? How would they gather two of every living thing form the entire globe and transport them to the arch's location? Many of those animals would have been hostile to one another, how might they have been kept form attacking one another? Then their is the issue of fresh water and sea water, if the "whole earth was flooded, then the two would have been forever mixed and the salt water would over a period of 40 days have killed all of the fresh water fish and other freshwater marine life. How did we get the fresh water fish and marine life back? How did the fresh water get again separated form the salt water? Thus the story appears to be a parable or myth not a factual account. It conveys certain truths but does not appear on its face to be realistically possible, given our modern understanding of biology.
Are you going to say speciation? And bacteria remaining bacteria is nothing compared to bacteria evolving into men.And eukaryotes remain eukaryotes? So a fish can evolve into a human? Some understanding of phylogenies would be helpful. Macroevolution has been observed, btw.
The minor adaptation we witness is the result of a coded feature, like replication, distribution, coding and repair. It is not a result of random mutations, the Darwinist mechanism. The former is 21st Century science.?? sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "coded process".
Random mutation has been isolated and tested extensively in experimentation. The results do not show the claims of the Darwinist.again, what?
1) The medium is already programmed.The DNA code certainly can - you might want to look up gene duplication and mutation as a way new genes write themselves.
Given the fact that houses are built through chance, just like humans, everything.You should see my house! Besides, what does that have to do with evolution?
Good for Mr LutherIt's funny how the same conversation comes up in different threads. It's well known among bible scholars that the ancient hebrew cosmology shown in the Bible was that of a flat earth, under a hard dome, with the sun going around the unmoving earth. It was even on the cover of Luther's book in the 1500's. Here are a few of the verses that show that, as posted on the other thread.
This may not be interpreted with atheism. You may begin here************************************
The Hebrew is clear that the "firmament" is a hard dome - the hebrew word used (raqiya) means "hard dome", not "air".
Before we continue,Here are some more verses that make it clear that the earth is flat.
Job 38:13-14
might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
Isaiah 40:22
cir·cleHe sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Matthew 4:8
the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the worldhttp://www.christianforums.com/t7491842-5/#post55497869Even if the earth was flat, atop a high mountain, you cannot see the entire earth. What are the kingdoms of the earth? There is the kingdom of heaven and the fruits of such. What are the kingdoms of the earth, and who is the prince of this world. It is a phase of temptation. What are the temptations of the earth to the material man, the material mind. This may not be interpreted with atheism.
Daniel 4:10-11These as we find are in the form of a dream or vision and is left to be interpreted. The height of the tree is given as the most important component of the vision and as with the phrase "its touched the top of the sky" is not meant to convey that any man has ever seen a tree touch the sky, but stands only to reference the sheer magnitude of this object and the size of the role it plays in this event. Nowhere do we find reference to a flat earth, not even a vision or dream of a flat earth. Even if he saw in that vision that every man every where on the earth could see that tree, the message of the vision is conveyed through these means.These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.
Psalm 19:4Poetic language. Even if the earth was flat your voice cannot sustain from one end to the other. Even in this case, other means of information transfer could be employed. "He has pitched a tent for the sun" need not be explained. This is desperationTheir voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
Psalm 104:2he stretches out the heavens like a tent
he stretches out the heavens like a tent.
************************************
Oh, so then it is figurative, not literal? So we need to remember that some words in the Bible should be interpreted figuratively?
Papias
This was just givenAgain much of what you suggesting is context and yes words do sometimes vary in meaning depending upon context. However the passage given was a sign that the author was unaware that the sun did not move and that the earth indeed did move about the sun. It would be as if you were to say "as surely as the sun is black I love you". Either you are making a point ( that you really don't love that person) or you simply are unaware of that the sun is not black. Clearly the author whomever it was was not aware of these facts. However we today are aware and it makes clear that these passages could never have been "dictated" by god or be considered "divinely inspired".
Are you going to say speciation?
And bacteria remaining bacteria is nothing compared to bacteria evolving into men.
The minor adaptation we witness is the result of a coded feature, like replication, distribution, coding and repair. It is not a result of random mutations, the Darwinist mechanism. The former is 21st Century science.
Random mutation has been isolated and tested extensively in experimentation. The results do not show the claims of the Darwinist.
1) The medium is already programmed.
2. There is the given feature
3. Random mutation has been tested
Given the fact that houses are built through chance, just like humans, everything.
All we witness is adaptation. Adaptation may affect all structures and traits, including those which are involved in reproduction. And as with adaptation on all scales, it is the same organism.Greg wrote:Of course. Macroevolution is defined as change at the species level or higher. You do understand the classification levels, right?
Adaptation is a compulsory feature on designed structures. Your computer has a fan which goes on and speeds up when temperature rises. The use of this to facilitate the chance formation of life is DarwinismAnd of course requires much more time. I've seen this argument a hundred times, and what it always comes down to is the fact that there is no barrier for smaller amounts of evolution to add up to larger amounts. We've seen information added over and over, new traits, new features and all that evolve. When asked what the barrier could possible be, the creationists always fails to come up with anything realistic, because there isn't a barrier.
01/07/30 - ICBP 2000OK, if this is 21st century science, could you point to reference (online preferred for access) of a real, mainstream, biological scientist who will explain that the diversity we see is not the result of evolution?
They support evolution (I avoided the term "Darwinist" only because creationists play word games with that). Since you claimed that experiments show that mutation is not consistent with evolution, I'll politely ask you for a reference or support for that claim.
How can it be programmed when the DNA in question doesn't exist before the process? Or are you saying that "life is able to evolve"? well, duh.
Houses are built through conscious design (though poor at times), while humans like other animals God created by using evolution, which is not conscious nor forward thinking.
Papias
The adaptation we actually see is caused by genetic mutations in the offspring of the original organism. That means the offspring are not the same organism as the original. What we see is simply evolution, and we see it all the time.All we witness is adaptation. Adaptation may affect all structures and traits, including those which are involved in reproduction. And as with adaptation on all scales, it is the same organism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?