does the phrase 'in the beginning...'

archaeologist · Jul 1, 2007

I used the English equivalent of the Greek letters

i know what you used. strong has both.

but words used throughout the creation account suggest that God ordered creation to "bring forth" rather than simply speaking into existence as you seem to claim.

read hebrews 11:1-5. not my claim but God's.

since science is incapable of proof.

and i repeat my question, if science is incapable of proof, why do 'christians' hang onto and defend it so vigorously?

it then becomes a useless field with no value.

Not quite

if that whole paragraph is true, then why do you hang onto theistic evolution? you can't prove anything you say took place, so what good is it? you have nothing to offer but a bunch of hypothesis and the world needs more than that.

Since we cannot rule out every conceivable possibility (even the inane ones) we cannot prove anything.

that is another reason why creation is outside the scope of science and why science is not the final determiner of anything nor can be an authority.

which is why i can sit here and with confidence say evolution doesn't exist. because with God's help, I know what is truth and what isn't. science done the secular way leads you on a wild goose chase. God brings you to answers, 'ye shall know the truth...'.

which is why i can sit here and say you must be discerning, shun secular theories, methods, conclusions and all that is not of God because you are being led astray, deceived and made a fool of.

i would much rather be a fool standing with God on a literal genesis and Bible than do what you are doing.

just trying to demonstrate that "proof" is not possible outside of math

now i know you have lost it as that is just not true.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 1, 2007

archaeologist said:
.... and i repeat my question, if science is incapable of proof, why do 'christians' hang onto and defend it so vigorously?

...

There are some who might say that "proof" (of anything) is never possible. There can always be room for an alternative, however inane and improbable. Hence juries under English (common) law only have to find "beyond reasonable doubt".

Whether or not you agree with him, Dawkins' brilliant mind is brought to bear on this here http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113

KokoTheGorilla · Jul 1, 2007

RudolphHucker said:
Whether or not you agree with him, Dawkins' brilliant mind is brought to bear on this here....

Dawkin's not so intelligent man!

Deamiter · Jul 1, 2007

archaeologist said:
read hebrews 11:1-5. not my claim but God's.

Verse 3 discusses the creation of the universe, which in no way rules out God's use of his designed natural laws to create stuff WITHIN the universe. All those here who accept evolution believe that God created the universe out of stuff that "was [not] visible" as claimed in these verses. We simply don't repeat your eisegeses that insists on cramming fiat creation of animals into a verse that discusses only creation of the universe.

and i repeat my question, if science is incapable of proof, why do 'christians' hang onto and defend it so vigorously?

it then becomes a useless field with no value.

You're missing the point. By definition, proof is unattainable except in theoretical applications (like mathematics). It's pure semantics, yes, but that doesn't make it any less true.

From www.holycross.edu: (pdf -- you had trouble opening a pdf earlier, PM me if you need or want instructions on how to download the free Adobe Acrobat reader)
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf

holycross.edu said:
I. THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF
A. Is there proof in science?
1. In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing
is ever proven in science. There is always some uncertainty about the actual value of results
obtained from some experiment or their interpretation.
2. The more times an observation is repeated and the greater number of different
observations and theories that it ties into and agrees with, the more confident we are about how well
we actually understand something.
3. However, in the strictest sense, we never arrive at "proof"; we simply arrive at a
very high degree of probability that we understand something. Thus, it is important that you shift
your frame of reference from one of proof and certainty of knowledge and interpretation of facts to
one that is PROBABILISTIC in nature, where our confidence in whether or not we understand
something properly is not and never can be absolute. Thus, you are well advised to remove the word
"proof" from your vocabulary as far as science is concerned.
This should be no big surprise -- truth and proof in our own lives are generally probabilistic in
nature. In fact, it is only in philosophy and mathematics where the criteria are rules of logic where
the idea of proof, in its purest sense, ever has absolute meaning.

(emphasis in article)

if that whole paragraph is true, then why do you hang onto theistic evolution? you can't prove anything you say took place, so what good is it? you have nothing to offer but a bunch of hypothesis and the world needs more than that.

Just as I can't prove evolution, you can't prove your position. Sure, you can give evidence -- even from the Bible, but you can't prove that that evidence is legitimate. There is always a possibility that it has been falsified or that you are interpreting it incorrectly. That mere possibility (even if it is very unlikely) rules out proof by definition.

which is why i can sit here and with confidence say evolution doesn't exist. because with God's help, I know what is truth and what isn't. science done the secular way leads you on a wild goose chase. God brings you to answers, 'ye shall know the truth...'.

which is why i can sit here and say you must be discerning, shun secular theories, methods, conclusions and all that is not of God because you are being led astray, deceived and made a fool of.

i would much rather be a fool standing with God on a literal genesis and Bible than do what you are doing.

I would rather be considered a fool by standing with God and my knowledge of His creation than do what you are doing -- insisting on your own personal flawed interpretation of scripture over the truth that can be found in God's revelations.

God has lead me to an understanding of his inspired scripture and his revelation in creation. It saddens me that you refuse to allow the Holy Spirit influence your understanding of God and instead hold to your preconceived understanding of how God must have written Genesis. Perhaps some day God will show you, as he has shown me that science cannot be secular or theistic but is utterly agnostic in nature. Perhaps he already has and all you need do is listen.

now i know you have lost it as that is just not true.

Oh come now, "now I know you have lost it" "you do not believe God" "you are being made a fool of" etc... These are not discussing our positions but are personal attacks that you claimed you weren't making. I'm just pointing them out to show you why people react with hostility to your posts. It would not take much effort to restrict your posting to the beliefs and not those who hold the beliefs.

archaeologist · Jul 1, 2007

which in no way rules out God's use of his designed natural laws to create stuff WITHIN the universe

yes it does as it s backed up by heb. 11.

We simply don't repeat your eisegeses that insists on cramming fiat creation of animals into a verse that discusses only creation of the universe

call it what you want but you are still saying the Bible is wrong and adding evolution to the mix is eisogesis not what i am doing. i stick with all the verses of the Bible not just those that i want to.

It's pure semantics, yes, but that doesn't make it any less true.

it isn't true so why evenaccept it?

PM me if you need or want instructions on how to download the free Adobe Acrobat reader)

don't be insulting, i have the latest acrobat, the link just didn't work.

you can't prove your position

sure i can and i told you where to go look inprevious posts. the results of creation are the proof.

I would rather be considered a fool by standing with God and my knowledge of His creation than do what you are doing -- insisting on your own personal flawed interpretation of scripture over the truth that can be found in God's revelations.

just because you have beenhere longer thanme does itmeanyou get to make personal attacks. i have stuck with the Bible so you are saying that the Bible is flawed and needs help from a theory solely constructed to replace God.

God has lead me to an understanding of his inspired scripture and his revelation in creation. It saddens me that you refuse to allow the Holy Spirit influence your understanding of God and instead hold to your preconceived understanding of how God must have written Genesis.

i would check the spirits that led you then as God does not lead people to sin, or go against His word or to theories which are not scriptural or to do things that he says not to do.

i have to say the same about you as God is very clear about how we are to live our lives and what we are to avoid. it is sad to see people being deceived.

by the way, you still have not provided any scripture that states God used evolution or any other natural processess, nor have you gone beyond a simple phrase or two in Gen. 1 which does not imply He used anything other than His word.

aside from the misuse of those phrases, you have no other book in the Bible which speaks on creation, to back you up i am not the one doing eisogesis here.

These are not discussing our positions but are personal attacks that you claimed you weren't making.

no, it is not a personal attack but a relating of a realization that came from reading your words. if you take secularisms over God, then you are on the wrong path.

people react with hostilities because they want to pursue what they want not what God wants. i have never made mention about people's salvation, that is not upto me. but i have commented that the bible says differently than you which none of you have beenable to refute without changing scriptures.

when i posted the verses on whom we are to follow, i was charged with taking out of context, that they were allegorical or subject to such a definition but not one scripture to say you were right.

what does that tell you?

you haven't even responded to the verses in exodus that clearly state that it took God 6 days, though i heard one comment that it was allegorical. sorry but that is changing scripture to fit one's theory not vice versa.

i will stick with the Bible and omit evolution and if you think i am wrong or misguided, i don't care, as i know i am right.

theFijian · Jul 1, 2007

archaeologist said:
i will stick with the Bible and omit evolution and if you think i am wrong or misguided, i don't care, as i know i am right.

If "let the earth bring forth" does not denote a natural process, then we can we are left with it meaning a supernatural process. In this way archie then deifies the creation itself and therefore has stepped outside of the traditional understanding of the relationship of God as the Creator and the Creation. This of course is a heresy.

Deamiter · Jul 1, 2007

archaeologist said:
yes it does as it s backed up by heb. 11.

call it what you want but you are still saying the Bible is wrong and adding evolution to the mix is eisogesis not what i am doing. i stick with all the verses of the Bible not just those that i want to.

I pointed out in detail how the Bible quite clearly suggests that God's word got the ball rolling and told the Earth to do the work that he prescribed. You cite a verse that says that God created the universe. Not my fault if you don't see how God telling his creation to do something doesn't contradict with God creating the universe in the first place.

it isn't true so why evenaccept it?

Oh isn't this a fruitful discussion. I say it's true to which you insightfully respond, "it's not true so why even accept it." Forgive me if I don't continue this childish back-and-forth you've started.

don't be insulting, i have the latest acrobat, the link just didn't work.

The link works fine (still does). By the way, was your cutting of my citation and the discussion of proof in science an admission that you are wrong about insisting on an unattainable standard of "proof" or were you just so insulted that I might offer to help you install acrobat that you forgot to respond beyond "It's not true."

sure i can and i told you where to go look inprevious posts. the results of creation are the proof.

In order to prove something, you need to show that no other imaginable explanation can possibly be right. You haven't shown that and because there's an infinite number of possible explanations, you can't possibly 'prove' anything. Again, are you interested in responding to the scientific article I posted from holycross.edu or are you simply going to repeat your position without further evidence?

just because you have beenhere longer thanme does itmeanyou get to make personal attacks. i have stuck with the Bible so you are saying that the Bible is flawed and needs help from a theory solely constructed to replace God.

The Bible is not flawed -- I have never said such a thing and I never will. The Bible also doesn't need help. The Bible is NOT however, designed to be a textbook on nature and as such does not describe the mechanisms behind infection, blood clotting, gravity, or evolution. The Bible might be the primary source for theological and spiritual truths, but it's hardly the only source of truth in the universe!

by the way, you still have not provided any scripture that states God used evolution or any other natural processess, nor have you gone beyond a simple phrase or two in Gen. 1 which does not imply He used anything other than His word.

aside from the misuse of those phrases, you have no other book in the Bible which speaks on creation, to back you up i am not the one doing eisogesis here.

Why should the Bible describe evolution or atoms or gravity or bacterial infections? What possible spiritual truths could such a description give us? If your assertion is that we should use nothing apart from what is imparted in the Bible, you should stop using any technology that uses electrons as they are just as unevidenced scripturally! The truth is that the Bible is not the only source of truth in the universe -- God's revelation in his creation is also quite capable of imparting truth.

no, it is not a personal attack but a relating of a realization that came from reading your words. if you take secularisms over God, then you are on the wrong path.

"You have lost it" is a personal attack. "Your position is untenable" is not a personal attack. You might be insane, but if I were to point it out it would be a personal attack even if it were true.

when i posted the verses on whom we are to follow, i was charged with taking out of context, that they were allegorical or subject to such a definition but not one scripture to say you were right.

what does that tell you?

Having been there, you tried to cite verses about who we are to follow as evidence that your interpretation of Genesis 1 is correct. All of us here follow Christ of the Bible, but just as you probably don't interpret "this is my body" as claiming that you actually eat Jesus' body at communion, I reject your flawed interpretation of Genesis 1 as a historical account when it's form, structure and content clearly show that it was intended as a poetic mythological construct.

When you cite passages about who to follow, they don't support your position because we all follow Christ, we just don't follow your flawed human interpretation of a small section of scriptures.

you haven't even responded to the verses in exodus that clearly state that it took God 6 days, though i heard one comment that it was allegorical. sorry but that is changing scripture to fit one's theory not vice versa.

Which verses? I have never seen a single verse in the Bible that cites Genesis 1-2 as primarily historical. Every single instance I've ever seen uses the citation of the story to show how Genesis 1-2 has allegorical or more accurately, symbolic meaning. But feel free to show how I'm wrong -- show me where Genesis is cited primarily to discuss history and not to make a symbolic, spiritual point.

archaeologist · Jul 1, 2007

Fijian:

If "let the earth bring forth" does not denote a natural process, then we can we are left with it meaning a supernatural process. In this way archie then deifies the creation itself and therefore has stepped outside of the traditional understanding of the relationship of God as the Creator and the Creation. This of course is a heresy

i have 3000 years of tradition on my side, the Bible on my side, Jesus on my side, the apostles and so on; so i highly doubt your charge.

since God does things that leaves no doubt who did it and whom should get the glory why would He use a natural process which would easily be confused and credit given to someone or something other than His power?

you would need to prove that the phrase, 'let the earth bring forth...' was actually an evolutionary natural process before making such a charge, then yu woul dhave to have contextual scripture to back up your point and prove it so.

just stating in a theory that that is a natural process, does not prove heresy on my part.

so where are the scriptures and the credible, legitimate, scholarly, sources which can prove such a phrase was a natural process?

quoting darwin, and his supporters do not count as they are not of God.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 1, 2007

archaeologist said:
... i have 3000 years of tradition on my side ...

...

What do you mean by this?

Is there some special significance in the time (yom) of 1000 BC?

Was there no "tradition" before then?

archaeologist · Jul 1, 2007

The Bible is NOT however, designed to be a textbook on nature and as such does not describe the mechanisms behind infection, blood clotting, gravity, or evolution. The Bible might be the primary source for theological and spiritual truths, but it's hardly the only source of truth in the universe!

all that proves is that God did not want to make the Bible so think, no one would read it. it doesn't prove evolution.

i am reminded of what the apostles said, at the close of one of the gospels:

"24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written"

John 21:24-25

if this were so for Jesus' acts what do you think would happen if God wrote everything down for His?

The link works fine

didn't work on my computer but then i have a korean operating system on one of them.

The truth is that the Bible is not the only source of truth in the universe

most people if honest, will discover what God did in Genesis 1:1. just because we do not have all the details (see above) does it open the door for evolution or any other natural process.

you (TE's) keep limiting God to human understanding and human theories, you have yet to apply what God said in Is. 55:7-9:

7 Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts

so in this passage where do you find that God would go according to darwin?

In order to prove something, you need to show that no other imaginable explanation can possibly be right

the Bible does that but many are not accepting it, they either outright reject it, allegorize or metaphorize passages, challenge the translation (prog. creat. do this) or even change the translation based upon no evidence and so on.

i have already stated that God created the universe and all that there is within in a manner that left no doubt but you all rejected those words and cling to a theory that has no divine origin.

if it did you would be using scripture in response to my requests to show me scripturally. one phrase doesn't cut it.

You might be insane, but if I were to point it out it would be a personal attack even if it were true.

if it were true then it would not be a personal attack but a comment or statement on the current condition of the person being described as such.

the realization that you would hang onto secular conclusions over the spiritual truths God has given us, does indicate that reasoning with you is hopeless as you have made your decision.

I reject your flawed interpretation of Genesis 1 as a historical account when it's form, structure and content clearly show that it was intended as a poetic mythological construct

you can reject it all you want but it isn't my interpretation, it is what God has said and you have to deal with God on that. all of scripture backs it up and you have yet to quote any scripture which supports your thinking.

When you cite passages about who to follow, they don't support your position because we all follow Christ, we just don't follow your flawed human interpretation of a small section of scriptures

if you are following, adopting, adapting secular science then you are not following God. see the verses quoted from Is. above, they are quite clear what people are to do. those are God's words not mine.

Every single instance I've ever seen uses the citation of the story to show how Genesis 1-2 has allegorical or more accurately, symbolic meaning.

i will wait for you to prove this first, with the following:
1. scripture
2. quotes from credible scholars
3. links or references to credible work
4. credible translator's notes and work
5. links to same.

your word means nothing.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 1, 2007

archaeologist said:
.... ..didn't work on my computer but then i have a korean operating system on one of them.

....

..

I too have a Korean system. Worked fine for me. How about the other {one of them)?

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 1, 2007

archaeologist said:
....

if you are following, adopting, adapting secular science then you are not following God. see the verses quoted from Is. above, they are quite clear what people are to do. those are God's words not mine.

....

Just to be clear here, which words are God's words and which not yours?

archaeologist · Jul 2, 2007

the words in the phrase "in the beginning..." besides teling us when God created, tells the believer that it is okay to say 'i don't know'.

it is the truthful answer for all we know is what the phrase tells us, in the beginning. getting caught up in a Y.E.C/O.E.C models leads people down paths they were not intended to go.

believers are to be honest and using secular science to promote their views is just not right, one has to be consistent with what they say they believe or their testimony is shot.

saying 'i don't know' is more honest and more in line with what Christ would want believers to say because the exact time creation happened is not germane to eternal life. Knowing God created as He stated is germane, for it tells us something about that person who says they believe.

looking foolish or intelligent should not matter as that is par for the course in the believer's life. one needs to learn to stand on the truth and be honest before spouting off some creation model filled with erroneous scientific theories or secular thinking.

believers are not to be like the people of this world, they are set apart and are called to a higher ground, one that can recognize when something is of the evil one and who listen to what God says not what they want Him to say. (no one is being singled out here).

it does not mean that one sits at home and does nothing, it means one looks at the Bible and is changed by its words and not the other way around. to be consistant and true one has to follow all the verses in the Bible not the select few that allows them to justify ignoring what God has said concerning His acts, their behavior and who they listen to.

their is more at stake here (i have said this before) than finding the correct model to show the world--they wouldn't believe it anyways. one needs to stick to the Biblical words--'in the beginning...' anything other than that is just not right.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 2, 2007

I am not at all sure I have grasped your point.

theFijian · Jul 2, 2007

archaeologist said:
i have 3000 years of tradition on my side, the Bible on my side, Jesus on my side, the apostles and so on; so i highly doubt your charge

You twist tradition just as you twist scripture.

Gen 1:24 - and God said 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures'

The first creatures were 'brought forth' by the earth. You have a choice: As has already been stated, the earth either brought forth creatures by a supernatural or a natural process. If it was the former then the earth itself is divine, since this deification of creation is not Biblical then we are left with the conclusion that God ordained that the creation should be 'fully gifted' with the ability to bring forth new life as he saw fit.

archaeologist · Jul 2, 2007

You twist tradition just as you twist scripture

actually you are wrong. when you accuse someone, you should at least read the whole passage, verse 25 : "and it was so. God made the wild animals according totheir kind..."

no twisting no natural process.

If it was the former then the earth itself is divine

please show credible sources where you get this idea.
and the following ones which you wrote inthe same sentence.

theFijian · Jul 2, 2007

archaeologist said:
actually you are wrong. when you accuse someone, you should at least read the whole passage, verse 25 : "and it was so. God made the wild animals according totheir kind..."

Thanks for cenemting my point. Gen 1:24&25 tell us that God created by gifting the earth with the capabilities to bring forth animal life. God created using natural processes. It seems its you who didn't read the whole passage.

please show credible sources where you get this idea.
and the following ones which you wrote inthe same sentence.

It's simple logic, either/or. Either the earth 'brought forth' through natural processes or through supernatural processes. If you reject the former you must accept the latter, therefore if you reject the notion that God created through natural process you must therefore ascribe divine attributes to the Creation itself.

archaeologist · Jul 2, 2007

Thanks for cenemting my point. Gen 1:24&25 tell us that God created by gifting the earth with the capabilities to bring forth animal life. God created using natural processes. It seems its you who didn't read the whole passage

i didn't cement your point, i pointed out where you ignored the part that--GOD MADE--was also a part of the creative act. there is no natural process involved.

It's simple logic, either/or.

no, that is reading into the text, there is no either or here.

therefore if you reject the notion that God created through natural process you must therefore ascribe divine attributes to the Creation itself

where do you get this idea? this isn't even biblical nor even logical. God used His power does not meancreation was elevated to divine status. again i ask for credible sources to back this up.

theFijian · Jul 2, 2007

archaeologist said:
i didn't cement your point, i pointed out where you ignored the part that--GOD MADE--was also a part of the creative act. there is no natural process involved.

no, that is reading into the text, there is no either or here.

where do you get this idea? this isn't even biblical nor even logical. God used His power does not meancreation was elevated to divine status. again i ask for credible sources to back this up.

You keep dodging the fact that scripture tells us that 'the earth brought forth'. I have shown how verses 24 and 25 tell us that God created through natural processes. You keep asking for 'credible sources', is the word of God not credible enough for you?

archaeologist · Jul 2, 2007

You keep dodging the fact that scripture tells us that 'the earth brought forth'. I have shown how verses 24 and 25 tell us that God created through natural processes

that is not proof that it was a natural process. i have hebrews 11 and other verses that say it was by God's spoken word alone that did it.

you haven't provided anything but a phrase to support your point, you need more than that to show credibility.

You keep asking for 'credible sources', is the word of God not credible enough for you?

so you are saying that if i run across the phrase 'and judas hung himself' then the phrase 'go and do thou likewise' that i should take that as the true word of God telling me what i should do?

you need to provide more than what you have been offering to be seen as providing anything credible.

does the phrase 'in the beginning...'

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Member

I just follow Christ.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I just follow Christ.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency