Do creationists not know their own Bibles?

[Timtofly]

In another thread, a creationist claimed that Jesus was a literal 6 day creationist. There is nothing in the Bible that supports this claim (nada, zilch, zip).

I'm used to creationists not knowing anything about science. I'm even used to creationists not knowing anything about creationism. But I'm starting to wonder if creationists know anything about the Bible at all.

Are you arguing that Jesus was unaware that some human changed the 10 commandments to teach the Hebrews that God created existence in 6 days?

Was this edit before or after Jesus lived in the 1st century?

 

[LoricaLady]

Are you arguing that Jesus was unaware that some human changed the 10 commandments to teach the Hebrews that God created existence in 6 days?

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back before the time of Messiah.

• The Ten Commandments Dead Sea Scroll, scroll 4Q41 (also known as the All Souls Deuteronomy ), was discovered in 1952 in Cave 4 near the Dead Sea site of Qumran . The scroll dates to the first century B.C.E. and is written in Hebrew.

Reference:
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/ten-commandments-dead-sea-scroll-to-be-displayed-in-israel/

There is no legitimate reason to believe they are different from Moses' time. The scribes would bury an entire scroll if they made one minor error on a letter while copying. People who know Hebrew can read the Dead Sea Scrolls just fine. The language, the Bible, and the truth, have been preserved.

And btw when the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared to modern Bibles in Synagogues and Churches, there were virtually no differences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back before the time of Messiah.

• The Ten Commandments Dead Sea Scroll, scroll 4Q41 (also known as the All Souls Deuteronomy ), was discovered in 1952 in Cave 4 near the Dead Sea site of Qumran . The scroll dates to the first century B.C.E. and is written in Hebrew.

Reference:
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/ten-commandments-dead-sea-scroll-to-be-displayed-in-israel/

There is no legitimate reason to believe they are different from Moses' time. The scribes would bury an entire scroll if they made one minor error on a letter while copying. People who know Hebrew can read the Dead Sea Scrolls just fine. The language, the Bible, and the truth, have been preserved.

And btw when the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared to modern Bibles in Synagogues and Churches, there were virtually no differences.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to the time of Jesus. They are only slightly different than modern translations. So what? You do realize that we have quite a few good records going back to that time, at least I would hope. By the way, archaeologists have pretty much refuted Moses. The Exodus appears to have never have happened either. In fact much of the Bible is younger than many Christians think. Most of it is not much older than the time of the Babylonian exile.

And this does not support Jesus's belief. Let's say that he was divine. He would have known that parts of the Bible could not be read literally, but what good would it do to point that out to people? It could have driven away the people that he was interested in drawing.

 

[LoricaLady]

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to the time of Jesus. They are only slightly different than modern translations. So what? You do realize that we have quite a few good records going back to that time, at least I would hope. By the way, archaeologists have pretty much refuted Moses. The Exodus appears to have never have happened either. In fact much of the Bible is younger than many Christians think. Most of it is not much older than the time of the Babylonian exile.

And this does not support Jesus's belief. Let's say that he was divine. He would have known that parts of the Bible could not be read literally, but what good would it do to point that out to people? It could have driven away the people that he was interested in drawing.

My experts come from serious research, not posters on You Tube who do not impress me.

 

[Timtofly]

And this does not support Jesus's belief. Let's say that he was divine. He would have known that parts of the Bible could not be read literally, but what good would it do to point that out to people? It could have driven away the people that he was interested in drawing.

You know the thoughts and minds of past humans?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My experts come from serious research, not posters on You Tube who do not impress me.

No, they really do not. Seriously researchers publish in well respected peer reviewed journals. They do not publish in fake journals, half of whose stories could be refuted by a high school student.

In fact sites such as AiG require their "scientists" to swear not to follow the scientific method. Can you answer why they do that?

 

[LoricaLady]

Oh! Oh! "Experts have refuted Moses" we are told. (Some have this kind of "expert" and some have another.)

Anyone who wants to see hard core, in your face, extensive, archaeological evidence for Exodus, see this vid. Really there is a lot more evidence but this is major. The people in the video are just some of those who have made the same discoveries. With all kinds of photos and videos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know the thoughts and minds of past humans?

No, but I do understand the evolution is a fact. The rest is a reasonably logical conclusion. Remember we are assuming that Jesus was divine. He would have known that evolution is a fact in that assumption. If you want to know how we know that evolution is a fact that might take some education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh! Oh! "Experts have refuted Moses" we are told. (Some have this kind of "expert" and some have another.)

Anyone who wants to see hard core, in your face, extensive, archaeological evidence for Exodus, see this vid. Really there is a lot more evidence but this is major. The people in the video are just some of those who have made the same discoveries. With all kinds of photos and videos.

Please, no joke videos. See if you can find a reliable source.

Archaeology has peer review too.

 

[LoricaLady]

No, they really do not. Seriously researchers publish in well respected peer reviewed journals. They do not publish in fake journals, half of whose stories could be refuted by a high school student.

In fact sites such as AiG require their "scientists" to swear not to follow the scientific method. Can you answer why they do that?

Please provide data, actual quotes, and a URL where AIG requires their scientists to swear not to follow the scientific method. I'll be waiting. And you put "scientists" in quotes for those coming from AIG. Try counting the scientific degrees of those writing for that website. It won't be fast and easy.

Your comments indicate you are clueless about AIG but are quite happy to misrepresent them.

Waiting for that URL now....

 

[LoricaLady]

Please, no joke videos. See if you can find a reliable source.

Archaeology has peer review too.

Waiting for that URL, as requested at post #150. Give me the quote.

 

[pitabread]

Please provide data, actual quotes, and a URL where AIG requires their scientists to swear not to follow the scientific method.

Statement of Faith

In particular the last clause rules out scientific investigation, because they've already decided on their conclusion:

• Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
• The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
• The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
• The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
• The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Your comments indicate you are clueless about AIG but are quite happy to misrepresent them.

Those of us who are veterans of these debates are more familiar with creationist organizations than most creationists. There is some irony there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please provide data, actual quotes, and a URL where AIG requires their scientists to swear not to follow the scientific method. I'll be waiting. And you put "scientists" in quotes for those coming from AIG. Try counting the scientific degrees of those writing for that website. It won't be fast and easy.

Your comments indicate you are clueless about AIG but are quite happy to misrepresent them.

Waiting for that URL now....

No problem. It is in their statement of faith. But since you almost surely do not understand the scientific method, and are afraid to discuss it, you will probably miss it:

Statement of Faith

There you go. Can you see it? If you don't I will post the specific phrase.

EDIT: LOL, that is what I get for writing out an answer, beaten by @pitabread !

 

[Subduction Zone]

Waiting for that URL, as requested at post #150. Give me the quote.

Wow! You are not very patient.

 

[pitabread]

No problem. It is in their statement of faith. But since you almost surely do not understand the scientific method, and are afraid to discuss it, you will probably miss it:

Statement of Faith

There you go. Can you see it? If you don't I will post the specific phrase.

EDIT: LOL, that is what I get for writing out an answer, beaten by @pitabread !

What can I say, my copy-paste skills are on point.

 

[Timtofly]

No, but I do understand the evolution is a fact. The rest is a reasonably logical conclusion. Remember we are assuming that Jesus was divine. He would have known that evolution is a fact in that assumption. If you want to know how we know that evolution is a fact that might take some education.

Modern understanding based on modern knowledge cannot assume Jesus was God nor assume Jesus was not God.

This thread is on the claim Jesus did not know the 10 commandments nor the book of Exodus, not evolution or a theory about evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Modern understanding based on modern knowledge cannot assume Jesus was God nor assume Jesus was not God.

This thread is on the claim Jesus did not know the 10 commandments nor the book of Exodus, not evolution or a theory about evolution.

One can always make assumptions for sake of argument. That is not an assumption that that is the actual case. And no, this thread is about whether creationists know their own Bible. It has taken a bit of a detour, but that happens to threads eventually.

 

[LoricaLady]

Statement of Faith

In particular the last clause rules out scientific investigation, because they've already decided on their conclusion:

• Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
• The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
• The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
• The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
• The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

NOTHING you included tells scientists not to follow the scientific method. You, too, are misrepresenting AIG. It doesn't even mention the scientific method!

AIG has its bias toward the Bible. Once more I see the double standard. Atheists and agnostics are allowed to have their biases, but not those who believe the Bible. Do atheist and agnostic websites and evolution promoting sites want to publish input from born again Christians? Of course not!

Again, your post did not give a URL or a quote that even mentions the words "scientific method." If you actually looked at the articles by their well qualified and highly degreed scientists you will see they give hard core data. As I have already said, the scientific method is unlikely to apply to evolution anyway because it is based on what can not be seen or tested, since it is supposedly from the ancient past. Therefore it cannot really use the scientific method because that includes an experiment with what is observable and testable.

As I also already showed, in the few cases where evolutionists tried to prove evolution with experiments, and always failed utterly, oh well, they just spun the story around to make it look like there was success.

So what if Miller and Urey got amino acids that kill life? So what if never, under any circumstances ever, has a single amino acid been shown to be anything but an amino acid period? So what if amino acids can't gather together the other needed materials and assemble one single cell?. Have faith brothers and sisters! Long ago in the invisible and unverifiable mythical past, amino acids were amazing in ways we don't understand yet! And that's how we know life can come from inorganic matter! Yeal right.

But once again I can see people trying to change the definition for "scientific method" just as people can keep trying to claim AIG said something they certainly never said. What you actually showed is that you don't have any real evidence at all, or authentic quote at all. Try again.

 

[pitabread]

NOTHING you included tells scientists not to follow the scientific method. You, too, are misrepresenting AIG. It doesn't even mention the scientific method!

Read the bolded section I posted. Here it is again:

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

You cannot do honest science whereby you automatically throw out evidence or a conclusion simply because it contradicts a predetermined religious belief.

 

[LoricaLady]

Wow! You are not very patient.

Take your time. Remember it has to include the directive from AIG saying their scientists are not allowed to follow the scientific method. Please don't comment to me anymore until I see that quote I want to see that you are a credible source of information.