Evolution vs. Creationism

[Pilgrim 33]

By the way, Allegorical, by way of Allegory is defined my Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as:

Main Entry: al·le·go·ry
Pronunciation: 'a-l&-"gOr-E, -"gor-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English allegorie, from Latin allegoria, from Greek allEgoria, from allEgorein to speak figuratively, from allos other + -Egorein to speak publicly, from agora assembly -- more at ELSE, AGORA
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
2 : a symbolic representation : EMBLEM 2

(disclaimer: the following is out of copyright freely distributable)

Below is the beginning of a long list of figures of speech (including allegory) used in the Bible, It is not the entire list of usages but, rather, just the list various figures of speech (with a couple of scripture verses listed for each figure)...for a complete list of all usages in the Bible of all figures of speech please see the volume, "Figures of Speech" by EW Bullinger. PM me if you would like the entire list of F/S.
-------------------------------------------------
Figures of Speech
This Is Appendix 6 From The Companion Bible.

It is most important to notice these. It is absolutely necessary for true interpretation. God's Word is made up of "words which the Holy Spirit teacheth" (1Corinthians 2:13. 1Thessalonians 2:13. 2Timothy 3:16. 2Peter 1:21, etc.).

A "Figure of speech" relates to the form in which the words are used. It consists in the fact that a word or words are used out of their ordinary sense, or place, or manner, for the purpose of attracting our attention to what is thus said. A Figure of speech is a designed and legitimate departure from the laws of language, in order to emphasize what is said. Hence in such Figures we have the Holy Spirit's own marking, so to speak, of His own words.

This peculiar form or unusual manner may not be true, or so true, to the literal meaning of the words; but it is more true to their real sense, and truer to the truth.

Figures are never used but for the sake of emphasis. They can never, therefore, be ignored. Ignorance of Figures of speech has led to the grossest errors, which have been caused either from taking literally what is figurative, or from taking figuratively what is literal.

The Greeks and Romans named some hundreds of such figures. The only work on Biblical Figures of speech in the English language is by Dr. Bullinger 1, from which we have taken the whole of information given here as well as in the marginal notes. He has classified some 217 separate figures (some of them with many varieties or subdivisions), and has given over 8,000 illustrations.

In Genesis 3:14,15. we have some of the earliest examples. By interpreting these figures literally as meaning "belly", "dust", "heel", "head", we lose the volumes of precious and mysterious truth which they convey and intensify. It is the truth whish is literal, while the words employed are figurative. (See under Appendix 19)

In the marginal notes will be found the names of most of these figures; and we append a list with their pronunciation and English definitions (giving one or more references as examples).

Ac-cis'-mus ; or, Apparent Refusal (Matthew 15:22-26). So named because it is an apparent or assumed refusal.
Ac-ro'-stichion; or, Acrostic (Psalm 119). Repetition of the same or successive letters at the beginnings of words or clauses.
Æ-nig'-ma; or, Dark Saying (Genesis 49:10. Judges 14:14). A truth expressed in obscure language.
Æ'-ti-o-log'-ia; or Cause Shown (Romans 1:16). Rendering a reason for what is said or done.
Affirmatio; or, Affirmation (Philippians 1:18). Emphasizing words to affirm what no one has disputed.
Ag'-an-ac-te'-sis; or Indignation (Genesis 3:13. Acts 13:10). An expression of feeling by way of indignation.
Al'-le-go-ry; or, Continued Comparison by Reprensentation (Metaphor) (Genesis 49:9. Galatians 4:22,24), and Implication (Hypocatastasis) (Matthew 7:3-5). Teaching a truth about one thing by substituting another for it which is unlike it.
Am-oe-bae'-on; or, Refrain (Psalm 136). The repetition of the same phrase at the end successive paragraphs.
Am'-phi-di-or-tho'-sis; or, Double Correction (1Corinthians 11:22). A correction setting right both hearer and speaker.
Am'-pli-a'-tio; or, Adjournment (Genesis 2:23. 1Samuel 30:5). A retaining of an old name after the reason for it has passed away.
An-ab'-a-sis; or, Gradual Ascent (Psalm 18:37,38). An increase of emphasis or sense in successive sentences.
An-acho'-re-sis; or, Regression (Ephesians 3:14). A return to the original subject after a digression.
An'-a-coe-no-sis; or, Common Cause (1Corithians 4:21). An appeal to others as having interests in common.
An'-a-co-lu'-thon; or, Non-Sequence (Genesis 35:3. Mark 11:32). A breaking off the sequence of thought.
An'-a-di-plo'-sis; or, Like Sentence Endings and Beginnings (Genesis 1:1,2. Psalm 121:1,2). The word or words concluding one sentence are repeated at the beginning of another.
An'-a-mne'-sis; or, Recalling (Romans 9:3). An expression of feeling by way of recalling to mind.
An-a'-pho-ra; or, Like Sentence Beginnings (Deuteronomy 28:3-6). The repetition of the same word at the beginning of successive sentences.
An-a'-stro-phe; or, Arraignment (Acts 7:48). The position of one word changed, so as to be out of its proper or usual place in a sentence.
An'-e-sis; or Abating (2Kings 5:1). The addition of a concluding sentence which diminishes the effect of what has been said.
Ant-eis'-a-go-ge; or, Counter Question (Matthew 21:23-25). The answering of one question by asking another.
An-throp'-o-path-ei'-a; or, Condescension (Genesis 1:2; 8:21. Psalm 74:11. Jeremiah 2:13. Hosea 11:10). Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things.
Ant-i-cat'-e-gor'-ia; or, Tu Quoque (Ezekiel 18:25). Retorting upon another the very insinuation or accusation he has made against us.
Ant'-i-me'-rei-a; or, Exchange of Parts of Speech.

1. Of the Verb. The Verb used instead of some other part of speech (Genesis 32:24. Luke 7:21).
2. Of the Adverb. The Adverb used instead of some other part of speech (Genesis 30:33. Luke 10:29).
3. Of the Adjective. The Adjective used instead of some other part of speech (Genesis 1:9. Hebrews 6:17).
4. Of the Noun. The Noun used instead of some other part of speech (Genesis 23:6. James 1:25).

Ant-i-me-tab'-o-le; or, Counterchange (Genesis 4:4,5. Isaiah 5:20). A word or words repeated in a reverse order, with the object of opposing them to one another.
Ant-i-met-a-the'-sis; or, Dialogue (1Corinthians 7:16). A transference of speakers; as when the reader is addressed as if actually present.
Ant-i'-phras-is; or, Permutation (Genesis 3:22). The use of a word or phrase in a sense opposite to its original signification.
Ant'-i-pros-o'-po-poe-i-a; or Anti-Personification (2Samuel 16:9). Persons represented as inanimate things.
Ant'-i-ptos'-is; or, Exchange of Cases (Exodus 19:6, compare to 1Peter 2:9). One Case is put for another Case, the governing Noun being used as the Adjective instead of the Noun in regimen.
Ant-i'-stro-phe; or, Retort (Matthew 15:26,27). Turning the words of a speaker against himself.
Ant-i'-thes-is; or, Contrast (Proverbs 15:17). A setting of one phrase in contrast with another.
Ant'-o-no-ma'-si-a or, Name Change (Genesis 31:21). The putting of a proper name for a Appellative or common Noun, or the reverse.
Aph-aer'-e-sis; or, Front Cut (Jeremiah 22:24). The cutting off of a letter or syllable from the beginning of a word.
Ap'-o-di-ox'-is; or, Detestation (Matthew 16:23). An expression of feeling by way of detestation.
Ap-o'-phas-is; or, Insinuation (Philemon 19.). When, professing to suppress certain matters, the writer adds the insinuation negatively.
A-po'-ria; or, Doubt (Luke 16:3). An expression of feeling by way of doubt.
Ap-o-si-opes'-is; or, Sudden Silence It may be associated with:-

1. Some great promise (Exodus 32:32).
2. Anger and threatening (Genesis 3:22).
3. Grief and complaint (Genesis 25:22. Psalm 6:3).
4. Inquiry and deprecation (John 6:62).

Ap-o'-stro-phe; or, Apostrophe When the speaker turns away from the real auditory whom he is addressing to speak to another, who may be-

1. God (Nehemiah 6:9).
2. Men (2Samuel 1:24,25).
3. Animals (Joel 2:22).
4. Inanimate things (Jeremiah 47:6).

Association; or, Inclusion (Acts 17:27). When the speaker associates himself with those whom he addresses, or of whom he speaks.
As'-ter-is'-mos; or, Indicating (Psalm 133:1). Employing some word which directs special attention to some particular point or subject.
A-syn'-de-ton; or, No-Ands (Mark 7:21-23. Luke 14:13). The usual conjunction is omitted, so that the point to be emphasized may be quickly reached and ended with an emphatic climax (compare to Polysyndeton, and Luke 14:21).
Bat-to-log'-i-a; or, Vain Repetition (1Kings 18:26). Not used by the Holy Spirit: only by man.
-------------------------------------------

 

[TheBear]

Edit

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I agree with the first half of the statement.

However, these are not just some "old bones." These bones closely track the shape and modification of early mammals. From Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus, creating the pongid and hominid lines, on down through Austrolapithecus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, etc. One can see the lessening of the jaws, the ridge above the eyes, the lessening of the canines and the disappearance of diasthemas. Did you know that Chimpanzee DNA is closer to human DNA than Zebra DNA is to Horse DNA?

assumption. aka "theory" by evolutionists' religious belief, "wild guesses" by the common everyday man on the street.

another equally valid assumption: the two never were, are not, and never will be the same or from the same lines; ie there is no relationship other than the dust of the ground and the God that created them--they are completely and totally separate and individual.

close is as good as a mile. it's not coke, it's just not the real thing.

 

[Ondoher]

assumption. aka "theory" by evolutionists' religious belief, "wild guesses" by the common everyday man on the street.

another equally valid assumption: the two never were, are not, and never will be the same or from the same lines; ie there is no relationship other than the dust of the ground and the God that created them--they are completely and totally separate and individual.

close is as good as a mile. it's not coke, it's just not the real thing.

You are obviously still confused about how science works. I'm going to redirect you back to this post, which you never adequetely addressed, where I explain how the fossil record supports evolution. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10687896&postcount=311.

Feel free to use the same method to try to support any alternative hypothesis you might have.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

"Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

That is what is does.
What is it's ultimate goal?

 

[ProtestantDan]

assumption. aka "theory" by evolutionists' religious belief, "wild guesses" by the common everyday man on the street.

another equally valid assumption: the two never were, are not, and never will be the same or from the same lines; ie there is no relationship other than the dust of the ground and the God that created them--they are completely and totally separate and individual.

close is as good as a mile. it's not coke, it's just not the real thing.

"Wild guesses?" Need I remind you of the definition of hypothesis? A logical, plausible, possible explanation of events that is derived as a result of evidence. Evolutionary Theorists didn't wake up one day and say, "Gee, I think I'll make some wild guesses about how we got here." Evolution by means of natural selection came as a result of Darwin's exhaustive observation, study, and analysis of nature. His theories came as a result of evidence. He made an inference. Science does not come up with wild guesses and seek to prove them (if it does sometimes I believe it is bad science); rather it seeks to come up with an explanation based on evidence and observation made about the world around them.

I give the common man on the street enough credit to know the different definitions of "theory" and "wild guesses." They are not synonomous.

This "assumption" you speak of is a logical conclusion based on evidence. Your evidence is from a book, albeit possibly Divinely inspired, but in fact a book. You cannot test your hypothesis. And a hypothesis that is capable of being tested repeatedly as to authentic its accuracy is a crucial component to the Scientific Method.

 

[Ondoher]

That is what is does.
What is it's ultimate goal?

It has no ultimate goal, it is just a method. Scientists may have individual goals.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

"Wild guesses?" Need I remind you of the definition of hypothesis? A logical, plausible, possible explanation

possible explanation: a (wild) guess by common definition.

of events that is derived as a result of evidence. Evolutionary Theorists didn't wake up one day and say, "Gee, I think I'll make some wild guesses about how we got here."

Of course not; it's roots began with Nimrod back in old Babylon, Satan's original and first "church".

This "assumption" you speak of is a logical conclusion based on evidence. Your evidence is from a book, albeit possibly Divinely inspired, but in fact a book. You cannot test your hypothesis. And a hypothesis that is capable of being tested repeatedly as to authentic its accuracy is a crucial component to the Scientific Method.

for jillions of years those same scientifc theorists vehemently proclaimed the earth was flat. in the end, they, too, were nothing more than just wild guesses.

 

[Tomk80]

That is what is does.
What is it's ultimate goal?

Science is a method we use to try and explain how the world around us works. There is no ultimate goal except understanding how things work.

 

[WaZoO]

Ahh, yes, a logical, plausible, and possible explanation is indeed wild.

Satan did not invent evolution.

Those ideas can't be jillions of years old since the Earth is only 6kyo.

 

[Arikay]

"for jillions of years those same scientifc theorists vehemently proclaimed the earth was flat. in the end, they, too, were nothing more than just wild guesses."

False. The greeks used science and math to show that the earth was a sphere. However, many years after that, some christians believed that the bible said the earth was flat and we shouldn't trust pagan science to tell use it was spherical. (sound familiar?)

"Wild guesses?" Need I remind you of the definition of hypothesis? A logical, plausible, possible explanation

possible explanation: a (wild) guess by common definition.

of events that is derived as a result of evidence. Evolutionary Theorists didn't wake up one day and say, "Gee, I think I'll make some wild guesses about how we got here."

Of course not; it's roots began with Nimrod back in old Babylon, Satan's original and first "church".

This "assumption" you speak of is a logical conclusion based on evidence. Your evidence is from a book, albeit possibly Divinely inspired, but in fact a book. You cannot test your hypothesis. And a hypothesis that is capable of being tested repeatedly as to authentic its accuracy is a crucial component to the Scientific Method.

for jillions of years those same scientifc theorists vehemently proclaimed the earth was flat. in the end, they, too, were nothing more than just wild guesses.

 

[Tomk80]

Ahh, yes, a logical, plausible, and possible explanation is indeed wild.

Satan did not invent evolution.

Those ideas can't be jillions of years old since the Earth is only 6kyo.

But the devil is around longer than earth. He may already have spend jillions of years planning the use of evolution to defeat Christianity. That is why the global scientific conspiracy can work, despite it's great diversity in national, ethnic, religious and philosophical directions. It's all the result of an elaborate scheme devised in jillions of years time.

 

[ProtestantDan]

possible explanation: a (wild) guess by common definition.



Of course not; it's roots began with Nimrod back in old Babylon, Satan's original and first "church".



for jillions of years those same scientifc theorists vehemently proclaimed the earth was flat. in the end, they, too, were nothing more than just wild guesses.

Wild has the connotation of being whimsical and arbitrary. These guesses are a result of evidence. It is a guess, but it is a logical guess. It is rooted in physical, tangible evidence. Wild by YOUR definition, not by common accepted literary definitions. The foundation of debate is evidence and support to defend a thesis. Unless you can find or provide proof that Satan conceived the Theory of Evolution, your claims cannot be defended. I can simply produce a copy of Origin of Species authored by Charles Darwin, which is the earliest document I have heard of that describes these processes. Jillion is not a real measurement.

Need I mention a guy called Copernicus? He professed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, which ran in direct contradiction with Church doctrine. His heliocentric theory resulted in great controversy and personal punishment. So, unless you want to discount which is dominantly accepted as fact (heliocentrism), the Church made a "wild" (by your definition) guess, and has been deemed wrong. In fact, if I recall accurately, many scientists thought the Earth was round. One piece of evidence they used what that ships traveling over the horizon fade from bottom to top, rather than all at once, showing how they went along a curve. Another example is Galileo, condemned by the Church for scientific theories later proven to be true.

 

[TheBear]

There are more secrets and truths and mysteries and discoveries in the Bible than we could ever find, not in any one lifetime but in all time. We are told not to just passively read but to study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.

You are correct.

Even so, there's a wide variety of differing and opposing Christian doctrines, based on the same Bible. The purpose of these boards is to share/discuss our beliefs with each other. No one here is honored as the final arbitrator and authority on all things Biblical. And even though many here study God's word, (some for longer and more in-depth than others), we are all equals at this round-table of discussion. The result of going into these discussions with this attitude, is meaningful dialogue. Being genuinely interested in why someone believes the way they do, is a sign of spiritual maturity.

why are there six billion people with six billion..uhm, opinions? Free will, free choice. A jumping whoopin and hollerin and waving and dancing around singing praise worshipping charismatic young crowd is not gonna feel comfortable in a small old country hard oak pewed ancient organ methodist church any more than them old timer Lutherans would feel comfortable with the charismatic crowd googlin and a babblin. People are different. Take that away, as humanism desires, and The Gospel and Jesus are no longer needed.

But, we're not talking about opinions. We're talking about differing and sometimes opposing Christian doctrines based on scripture. Stick with one or the other, but don't confuse the two. They don't mix.

That's why we are to study, and not just rad it like as if it was just another cheap pulp mystery or romance novel, although, there are far too many versions out nowadays that are, sadly, written that way. It's part of that fast food, i want it now, and like tv i don't want to have to think much less pray culture that society is gradually forcing on us.

Never assume that just because another Christian disagrees with some of your Biblical interpretations and beliefs, they do not study God's Word with just as much dilligence and steadfastness as you. Believe it or not, some of us have been studying God's Word for decades. If you have too, that's great! You are one among many.

 

[Arikay]

The geocentric model is a good example of people trying to use the bible for what it wasn't ment for.
Although during some times some scientists might have thought the earth was flat (after the greeks showed it wasn't), most people look to the Columbus story as the basis of claiming that science said the earth was flat up until a couple hundred years ago. The flat earth Columbus story is a myth, no one laughed at him for believing the earth was round (they laughed because he miscalculated the size and would have died if he hadn't gotten lucky).

I really find it ironic when someone can sit on a computer, in a modern house, drive a car, take advantage of modern medicine, and call science a bunch of wild guesses.

 

[ProtestantDan]

Ahh, yes, a logical, plausible, and possible explanation is indeed wild.

Satan did not invent evolution.

Those ideas can't be jillions of years old since the Earth is only 6kyo.

Point 1: Unless this is satire, I provide the following definitions, care of dictionary.com:

Logical:

1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

Plausible:
Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible

Possible:

1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential

Wild
Based on little or no evidence or probability; unfounded: wild accusations; a wild guess.

Looking clearly at the definition, one can clearly see logical, plausible, and possible are antonyms to wild. Thus, to say "Ahh, yes, a logical, plausible, and possible explanation is indeed wild" would be entirely inaccurate and incorrect.

Point 2: I agree, see my previous post.

Point 3: I take issue with this. It would have been better to say "I believe the Earth is only 6000 years old." Prevailing scientific and public opinion disagrees with you. Various means of dating artifacts, fossils, etc. have dated objects FAR beyond 6,000 years.

Now my question for Creationists: Do you believe that previous species (defined by the existence of fossils) actually existed or do you believe they were contrived by science as a means to deceive the public? And if you believe they did exist, do you think they all died out suddenly (according to WaZoO within 6000 years)? Why are there such minute differences that (according to dating results) show older fossils becoming closer and closer to resembling human skeletons at they become more recent?

 

[h2whoa]

A word to the wise, Dan my friend.

Wazoo pretty much always = satire!

h2

 

[ProtestantDan]

I really find it ironic when someone can sit on a computer, in a modern house, drive a car, take advantage of modern medicine, and call science a bunch of wild guesses.

Exactly. Excellent point. In order to conduct a debate that is meaningful one must understand both sides. Creationists who claim that science is "a bunch of wild guesses" do not seem to comprehend or know the definition of science, theory, hypothesis, or any other important scientific term.

I forget who exactly said the following quote, but is it a person of spiritual heft among many Christians: "Do not speak of which you know nothing about." If you don't understand the foundations of modern science, your arguments are inevitably invalid.

 

[ProtestantDan]

A word to the wise, Dan my friend.

Wazoo pretty much always = satire!

h2

I am new here, and I do hope it is satire. It would shake my faith in humanity if someone was that confused to express a statement like that and assert it as true. My statement extends beyond her though, and is used to speak to anyone who might (I can't see how) actually agree with her statement as fact.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate, i dont think evolutions use it much any more . radio active dating is unreliable because of they are not constant and or immune to environmental influences. Has any one heard of the hydroplate theory.

The Hydroplate theory is rediculous and laughable, the amount of energy released by such a cataclysmic phenominon would have destroyed all life on Earth; even that which was in an arc. The wave which would sweep across the land would destroy all plant life and animal life. There would be no recovery within Noah's lifetime or that of the lifetime of any thing during the Old Testament. I think before such theories are even thought about as being anything better than a hypothesis, one should have a long and deep discussion on the impications with a knowledgable physicist. To get an idea about the scale of the destruction unleashed, one has only to realise that Mt. Saint Helen's eruption was as a candle to the sun compared to the devastation of Hydroplate theory. The 'Physicist Conversation' should also be had in regards to the Carbon Dating idea as well.