Do Creationists Believe in the Universe

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Yet you're expending an inordinately large amount of time with me, a supposed moron who won't budge from his mindset.

Who's the real goofball here, Scot?

Obviously you, Scot.

Are you even aware that you are projecting a term that is directly true of yourself? The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy is a fallacy of presumption that begs the question, reinterpreting the evidence to fit its conclusion rather than forming its conclusion on the basis of the evidence, which is precisely what you are attempting to do.

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2015

Crumbacher said:
The autographs ARE the originals.

Are you trying to get me to believe the King James writers translated from the autographs now?

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

Givemeareason said:
It is fairly obvious there was no knowledge of the universe by the writer(s) of Genesis since humanity could not see past what was visible to the naked eye... unless you want to say that God told them about it but also told them to not write about it.

There obviously was knowledge about the universe considering the Gospel was spelled out in the stars. Before the corruption of the zodiac, each of the symbols had a specific meaning, which spelled out the Gospel and God's plan of salvation. Virgo being the virgin, Leo being the Lion of the tribe of Judah, etc. Having a knowledge of something doesn't mean it has to be written down. Again, you would have a book that no one could carry around.

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2015

Crumbacher said:
Obviously you, Scot.

I'll bet you're one of those who thinks God's name is Yahweh, while Satan's angelic name isn't Lucifer ... aren't you?

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Are you trying to get me to believe the King James writers translated from the autographs now?

Not in the least. But if you knew anything about the copies, you would know that the Hebrew manuscripts have VERY little discrepancies between them. Unlike the Greek, where there are MANY. The KJV translators did their best and hoped others would come and better their work. They said, "Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make of a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one" That is verbatim from the 1611 KJV.

They believed in others continuing the work and making their work better. They did not believe their work was perfect, nor inspired. They merely translated and did so to the best of their ability. No more, no less.

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I'll bet you're one of those who thinks God's name is Yahweh, while Satan's angelic name isn't Lucifer ... aren't you?

Nope.

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2015

Crumbacher said:
They did not believe their work was perfect, nor inspired.

I do though.

And that's why I'm a strong KJVO.

If they believed their Work wasn't inspired, that's their problem -- not mine.

Givemeareason · Jul 9, 2015

Crumbacher said:
There obviously was knowledge about the universe considering the Gospel was spelled out in the stars. Before the corruption of the zodiac, each of the symbols had a specific meaning, which spelled out the Gospel and God's plan of salvation. Virgo being the virgin, Leo being the Lion of the tribe of Judah, etc. Having a knowledge of something doesn't mean it has to be written down. Again, you would have a book that no one could carry around.

This is not about astrology. We are talking about astronomy and seeing things far beyond the naked eye.

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I'll bet you're one of those who thinks God's name is Yahweh, while Satan's angelic name isn't Lucifer ... aren't you?

If you're referring to Lucifer being translated as "morning star" in some Bibles, I've got a newsflash for you. They did not replace Lucifer with Jesus. That is a strawman argument. First of all, Jesus is the Bright and Morning Star (capitalized). Satan's name, Lucifer, means "day star" or "morning star" when translated.

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2015

Crumbacher said:
Nope.

Well ... ain't we different?

According to Wrong's [Satanic] Dictionary, Satan and Jesus are one and the same persons.

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2015

Crumbacher said:
If you're referring to Lucifer being translated as "morning star" in some Bibles, I've got a newsflash for you. They did not replace Lucifer with Jesus. That is a strawman argument. First of all, Jesus is the Bright and Morning Star (capitalized). Satan's name, Lucifer, means "day star" or "morning star" when translated.

LOL -- you knew what was coming ... didn't you?

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I do though.

And that's why I'm a strong KJVO.

If they believed their Work wasn't inspired, that's their problem -- not mine.

No, that's your problem. You are attributing something to them that neither they attributed to themselves nor God attribute to them. Only the originals were God-breathed. And if you do your homework and compare them side-by-side, the KJV reads identical to the Geneva Bible in over 70% of the places. The Geneva was their base. So if you're going to argue for inspiration, then you'd better start with the Geneva Bible first.

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
LOL -- you knew what was coming ... didn't you?

Dude, I could pose all your arguments before you could. I used to have a video from Pensacola Cult College years ago and almost bought into their cult foolishness. Luckily, God gave me a brain to think for myself. Every one of their arguments held absolutely no water whatsoever and was merely a logical fallacy. I don't take things at face value. I study them in depth to see if there's any truth to it. And their video was chock full of lies and deceptions. Any first year Bible student worth their salt could have spotted them.

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2015

Crumbacher said:
No, that's your problem. You are attributing something to them that neither they attributed to themselves nor God attribute to them. Only the originals were God-breathed. And if you do your homework and compare them side-by-side, the KJV reads identical to the Geneva Bible in over 70% of the places. The Geneva was their base. So if you're going to argue for inspiration, then you'd better start with the Geneva Bible first.

Here you go, reader ... read this: Double Inspiration

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2015

Crumbacher said:
I don't take things at face value.

Except for Strong's Concordance, Zodhiates "King James" bible, and probably a host of others, I take it?

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Here you go, reader ... read this: Double Inspiration

Read that nonsense years ago. What makes you think only the KJV was doubly inspired and not Wycliff's work or Tyndale's work or the 1560 Geneva Bible? The whole premise is flawed. He applies that thinking only to what he WANTS to be "inspired." Since God's Word is supposed to be in the language of the people (which the KJV is NOT--it hasn't been for about 200 years), what makes you think God didn't inspire all translations for the times they were in (Wycliff, Tyndale, etc.)? And I'm speaking of translations, not paraphrases that are nothing more than bad commentaries.

By the way, based on the information and arguments in the link you sent, you HAVE TO accept EVERY translation as inspired. Wycliff, Tyndale, Geneva, NASB, ESV. Same reasoning as his translation of OT verses in the NT, or of the Hebrew OT into Greek OT (Septuagint). So KJVO is thrown completely out the window. If one English translation is inspired according to Ruckman's arguments, then so is every other English translation.

Homer Kent has rightly stated, "All subsequent copies or translations are 'inspired' only to the extent that they accurately represent the autographs."

John Girardeau has said, "Are translations inspired? The position is here taken that so far as a translation faithfully represents the original Scriptures, it is characterized by the same inspiration with them. If it exactly coincides with the original as to matter, it is substantially the same with it. So far as it deviates from the original, it ceases to be inspired... The translation was effected by fallible men, and therefore contains some errors... The translators were uninspired men, and consequently liable to mistakes; the translation is inspired, so far it exactly gives the original—so far, no more."

Some of Ruckman's arguments agree precisely with the above two quotes. Fact is, NO translation--not even the KJV--is perfect and without flaws. The article I sent you proves it. Every translation is "inspired" in so much as it represents the originals Scriptures.

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Except for Strong's Concordance, Zodhiates "King James" bible, and probably a host of others, I take it?

I don't use Strong's, or Zodhiates. And I compare multiple sources. I actually study, like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). You should try it some time (2 Tim. 2:15).

Crumbacher · Jul 9, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Except for Strong's Concordance, Zodhiates "King James" bible, and probably a host of others, I take it?

As far as Concordances go, you can use this saying:
Strong's for the strong; Young's for the young; and Crudence's for the crude.

I don't use any concordance except to look up the number of times a word appears and/or the different translations given to a particular word.

Also, I do not recommend Vine's. Not only is it confusing to navigate, but it is lacking in detailed information regarding the words.

Crumbacher · Jul 10, 2015

Givemeareason said:
This is not about astrology. We are talking about astronomy and seeing things far beyond the naked eye.

You are aware that they could see more back then than we can see today, right? Compare looking up at the sky at night out in the country to looking up at the sky at night in the city. The lights of the city blind much of what we can see. Obviously they could not see the whole of the universe, just as they could not see the whole of the ocean. There is stuff that genuine science has revealed through individuals who believed their Bibles. In case you didn't know, the majority of the fields of mathematics and science were founded by Christians who believed their Bibles. "Science" used to teach that the ocean floor was flat, but the Bible, 3000 years earlier, spoke of mountains and valleys in the ocean. Matthew Mead(?) believed his Bible and founded oceanography.
The extent of their knowledge of the universe has nothing to do with the creation account passed down from God, Who was there, to Moses when he recorded Genesis. And the order of the creation account is not problematic either. Ever see a potato grow in darkness? Other plants do it too. There's no question as to the fact that plants have been scientifically observed to grow in darkness. The question would be HOW LONG they can grow in darkness without light. The Genesis account is a difference of 1 day. I've seen potatoes grow for weeks in darkness.

Crumbacher · Jul 10, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Well ... ain't we different?

According to Wrong's [Satanic] Dictionary, Satan and Jesus are one and the same persons.

No they're not. I'd like to see your reasoning for thinking that.

Do Creationists Believe in the Universe

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency