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.
You still haven't got it. When it comes to scripture, TEs don't draw any line between choosing what to believe and what to reject at all. We accept all of it, some as history, some as law, some as poetry, some as teaching, some as miracle stories, some as parables, some as apocalyptic imagery, some as prophecy, some as myth. None of it is rejected. We don't think any scripture is to be rejected on the basis of the literary form it is presented in.
You are the one who says only what is presented in the form of fact is to be accepted and all else rejected. We say don't reject any of it, factual or otherwise, because it is all inspired truth from God.
In other words, they make up their own religion based on what they're willing to believe.So, in other words, you don't know which parts are myth and which parts aren't
So, in other words, you don't know which parts are myth and which parts aren't
Odd that you quote from Revelation as if it supports literalism when it is a book of symbols and allegory.In other words, they make up their own religion based on what they're willing to believe.
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you."
Proverbs 30: 5 Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar."
Psalms 119: 160 "All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal."
Revelation 22: "18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."
Jesus quoted from the Scriptures as 100% factual.
Mark 12: 24 Jesus replied, Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead risinghave you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!
They may wish to invent doctrine and pass it off as Scriptural, but as for me, I will believe the Lord.
I don't see any symbolism in Revelation 22: 18-19, and neither do you.Odd that you quote from Revelation as if it supports literalism when it is a book of symbols and allegory.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,I don't see any symbolism in Revelation 22: 18-19, and neither do you.
Most of the Revelation is symbolism because it deals with the end of the world. God isn't going to put that information out there in simple English. Not even the angels know when the end will come. Why would He tell the unsaved how long they have before the judgment?
Do you see that as profoundly different from Psalms 30: 5-6, which says the same thing about the Old Testament? The message is clear. Don't add or detract from the Scriptures. God intends for them to be preserved, though properly re-translated into current language.The verses are talking about the book of Revelation with all its symbolism and allegory.
Originally Posted by Papias
That's the point of a definition, there is a definite meaning with precise details, essential meanings, literal and common usage meanings.mark, that's another of your frankenstein definitions, where you grab things from different sources, stitch them together, and try to pass them off as a definition. It may work in your own mind, but not in the real world.
What is commonly referred in Modernism as dogma is really just essential doctrine defined by the standards (aka canon) of the Christian faith.
Papias wrote:That's a conclusion based on the definition of Modernism from the RCC.Darwinism was a part of, 'the movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries that sought to adapt doctrine to the supposed requirements of modern thought'.
The purple part is something you made up and stitched in there. There is no dictionary that defines "Darwinism" that way.
In order to realize the substantive basis for that connection you must have a standard by which the definition for Darwinism
The green part is part of the description of modernism, not Darwinism, which applies to philosophy, as the full description itself says.
mark, maybe instead of frankenmark descriptions, you could use, you know, a dictionary?
I know what these words mean, you know what they mean, that's not the issue.
I know what the Scriptures and the canons of Christian theism are and so do you, that's not the problem. The problem is Modernism, Darwinism and Theistic Evolution want you to chase answers around in circles like chasing ghosts in the fog. Nothing is ever defined, everything is shrouded in an endless barrage of fallacious diversions.
Then quote it in context don't run me in circles by begging the question of proof. What happens when I answer the question, you ask it again and again. Nothing is defined, nothing is ever conclusive, there is not standard by which to make a determination. It's called begging the question of proof and is a staple of Theistic Evolution, second only to the inevitable ad hominem. You can't appeal to an actual standard, scientific or theological, because when you do there is a proof for an alternative to an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. The presuppositions of Darwinian dogma cannot allow that so it's buried in fallacious diversions.Out of context? Tell me how it is out of context? The whole document supports theistic evolution, and you can't point to any part that doesn't, and you know it. Go ahead, point to some unrelated part and then claim it says something it doesn't - I can't say I'll surprised, though.
There is a standard for determining a valid criticism on Christian Forums, it's called evidence.As far as "inflammatory", have you read any of your posts?
First of all nothing substantive or coherent, it's a rhetorical circular questions punctuated with an inevitable ad hominem. It's a fallacious statement, an argument that never happened, because you have nothing substantive. You have nothing substantive because you have abandoned the standards of science and the canons of faith. Chase all the ghosts in the fog you like but don't try to bring me on one of your expeditions. I have actual standards and canons to appeal to.OK, mark, now that you've copied, it, can I assume that you've read it? What part of it do you not understand?
A text without a context is a pretext. 'Christian culture being attacked, men persuading themselves of what they do not wish to believe. Arguing that evolution, not fully proven, proves all things, such fictitious tenets repudiate all that is absolute and paved the way of the new erroneous philosophy.'Do you understand the part about "converging evidence"? How about "virtually certain"? How about "humanoid lineage"? Did you just happen to miss all those? When he says "humanOID", what you think is meant?
Did you read his conclusions or just cherry pick his descriptions from their natural context. This practice of quoting out of context is yet another flawed argument that cannot stand on it's merit, it must be sustained by the ubiquitous ad hominem. He further warns, ' errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science'.
I don't need to make up definitions, I have standards by which they can be determined whether you want to admit it or not.There you go again, falsely equating two different things, like you did with "modernism" and "Darwinism" above, except this time with "TE" and "Modernism". You can't stop with making out your own definitions, can you?
Darwinism is defined by the Erasmus and Charles Darwin and Darwin's bulldog. Theistic evolution is nothing but Darwinism or evolutionists would be attacking them with the same zeal they do Creationism and Intelligent Design.
If you think there are two different semantical terms being equivocated there is a simple remedy, define both and the difference will be obvious,
the way I refuted the equivocations of evolution and Darwinism. All you really need to destroy an equivocation fallacy is the two definitions. I've never seen it fail.
Which, as I know you are well aware, lead to the dire warnings against the dangers of Modernist philosophies like and especially, Theistic Evolution.
I never called the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means, a conspiracy, I called it Darwinism. It's one long argument against Creation and Theistic Evolution is the same thing with a theistic label.mark, it sounds nothing like that - oh, except in your own mind, where you have contructed this idea that the reality of UCA is somehow a conspiracy against Christianity.
It's a universal, a priori assumption. That's why it's called universal in the first place.Of course not, because UCA is a conclusion, not an assumption. That's been pointed out to you many times, and by others as well.
Calling Darwinism something else doesn't change what it is.
Your begging the question of proof again. You have argued using this semantical shell game and you've been refuted every single time. Not because I'm such a great debater but because your arguments are hopelessly fallacious.
I already have, every time you have resorted to them in this thread and in this post.And when you previously on this same thread accused me of that, I kindly asked for you to point out where I made an ad hominem attack, so that I could apologize, and you admitted that I did not do so on this thread. Can you point out a place now, or is this more of you empty insults?
I clearly identify the ad hominems and asking circular questions doesn't absolve you from the fact that fallacious arguments are arguments that never happened. Like begging the question of proof, if it's a fallacious rhetorical device like the one you just used it's just dismissed.
Your arguments fell faster then any of the Theistic Evolutionist arguments I had to deal with on here. The reason is that you locked yourself into a standard, RCC doctrine and dogma. That's something no self respecting Theistic Evolutionist would ever do, just like they never admit or acknowledge definitions or standards of evidence. Because if they do the inverse logic is intuitively obvious, a null hypothesis emerges and Creation as history becomes a valid alternative to atheistic materialism. That's something the directors and producers of the Darwinian theater of the mind would never allow.More empty insults. This section is especially funny since you have been avoiding the actual dictionary defintions again and again on this thread, and making up your own definitions.
Originally Posted by Papias
The list is fine, a nice improvement I might add.P. S. Taking your good advice from before, I've tried to straigten the columns. Do they look better?
It's the treatment of the text that is flawed. Why don't you take a look around New Advent and see what the RCC does with this genealogy and get back to me.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Are you still pretending you have shown your equation in the Lexicons? No arguing in circles, I am just waiting for you to justify your claim day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"
'Assyrian' said:heliocentrism showed the literal geocentric interpretations were wrong. 12
Mark Kennedy said:Why was Galileo called before the Inquisition? The answer might surprise you because it had nothing to do with the Bible, at least that was Galileo's argument. I'll give you a hint, it involved a fictional Aristotelian named Simplicio. 15
Mark Kennedy said:You actually need a dictionary to define a day?
Day (yôm yome, יום ) : From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially). Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 31 (Strong's #H3117)
Day, a 24 hour period as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. (Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions)
It means day, it's defined as evening plus morning equals one day.
Assyrian said:Where is day defined as "evening plus morning equals one day"?
Sorry Mark none of those verse defines day as "evening plus morning equals one day". Neither does Strong's dictionary.
Mark Kennedy said:yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום:
1. day, time, year
a. day (as opposed to night)1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
b. day (24 hour period)
2. as a division of time 1b
c. a working day, a day's journey1. today
d. days, lifetime (pl.)
e. time, period (general)
f. year
g. temporal references
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow
Origin: from an unused root meaning to be hot
And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)
None of that gives us the Creationist equation I was asking you about: "evening plus morning equals one day".
No equivocation here Mark, no 'wilful ignorance' no blindness, just pointing out you haven't answered my question yet.
I think it's just common sense. Incidentally, whenever "day" is defined by 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., in Scripture, it is talking about a literal day.
Nothing common sense about it. Evening and morning (or more literally dawn) are short periods of twilight. They do not add up to 24 hours.
Day---->evening/morning---Day 2------>evening/morning------> Day 3
That is still not the equation based definition of day Mark gave us
Assyrian said:There is no point in wanting to interpret the bible literally if you aren't willing to accept to what the writers are saying. 35
... which is what using a dictionary gives us.
Papias said:Dar·win·ism
/ˈdɑrwəˌnɪz əm/ Show Spelled [dahr-wuh-niz-uh m] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.
psst. mark, you are making up definitions again.
No, that's a conclusion you have in your own mind. I've asked your for actually RCC support of that, and you've failed repeatedly to give it.
I gave the actual definition of Darwinism. Do you finally agree that mining old writings and stitching them together is not a way to get a defintion?
Sure it is. You obviously don't know what the words mean when you make false claims like those in these posts of yours, and it's especially telling when you refuse to simply use the dictionary definitions I've supplied.
empty insults in typical word salad.
empty insults in typical word salad.
non-sequiter. I pointed out that your posts are simply strings of inflammatory text (for ironic instance, see the two diatribes you just went on, above).
As far as evidence goes, you haven't posted relevant evidence. I hope you will though, it makes for better discussion.
Sigh. more empty insults.
More unrelated word salad. I asked if you understood:
I'll wait for a response on those questions..........
- the part about "converging evidence"?
- How about "virtually certain"?
- How about "humanoid lineage"?
- When he says "humanOID", what you think is meant?
Sure, he makes it abundantly clear that he is talking about atheistic versions of evolution. We could together fight those much more effectively if UCA deniers didn't insist on an untenable position.
Oh, OK, then you are going to start using dictionary defintions? Good.
Darn. I thought you were going to use real defintions. My bad. I guess we're back to you making up definitions and ignoring the actual definitions & facts. I should have realized that by "standards" you meant "my own personal definitions".
I did, several posts ago. The difference is and has been obvious.
So, where did you post the dictionary definition for darwinism?
Still falsely equating two different things. Sad to see.
As many of us have pointed out repeatedly (and will continue to do as long as you make your baseless claims), UCA is a conclusion, not an a priori assumption, regardless of how much you wish it were.
Wow, now you are making things up about what the "universal" means. You don't get tired of this, I see.
You are right about that. Did you see the dictionary definition, or should I post it again?
empty insults. You know mark, we may differ in that I don't seem to enjoy hurling insults.
I looked, and I didn't see them. Could you please list the post number and quote were I insulted you or someone else ?
Wow, that's nearly all the words in the hat! You missed "ghosts", however - maybe add that?
Oh yeah, "null". I forgot that one. More unrelated word salad. You could have avoided that by simply agreeing to use dictionary definitions, which is what the preceding statement was about.
Do you see that as profoundly different from Psalms 30: 5-6, which says the same thing about the Old Testament? The message is clear. Don't add or detract from the Scriptures. God intends for them to be preserved, though properly re-translated into current language.
Still trying to conflate Peter's use of myth in verse 16 with his discussion about OT prophecy in v 20. And you still don't understand what the 'private interpretation' is talking about. Peter is saying the prophecy is not the result of the prophet's own ideas.Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20, 21)Theistic Evolution, a private interpretation of Scripture based on Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, calling Creation 'myth', 'symbol', 'parable', 'figurative' or anything other then a literal miracle.
Except you haven't produced an Lexicons that actually say day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day".I'm pretending that the literal meaning, AKA what it actually says, is what it actually means. While you are showing what it really means by denying what it actually says.Your begging the question of proof on your hands and knees but you still have the audacity to be condescending.
Vintage, theistic evolutionist rhetoric.
Galileo went on trial for heresy because he denied the majority and undisputed interpretation of church fathers and scholars throughout church history. Again you don't have much credibility insisting on a literal interpretation if you do not understand literal interpretation of passages like Joshua 10:12&13 and Eccl 1:5 by church fathers and how it describes the sun moving across the sky in the day time and travelling back to the place it rises at night.The Scriptures are altogether silent about the sun revolving around the earth or the earth revolving around the sun. Astronomers uniformly believed the sun revolved around the earth until the invention of the telescope, a fact you could only know if you actually cared about science. Galileo went to the Inquisition because he denied the majority opinion of the contemporary astronomers of his day, not because of what the Scriptures actually say. They do this whether it's the earth revolving around the sun or whether the word 'day' means 'day', denying the obvious is the bane of their rhetoric. Galileo's enemies who couldn't refute his proofs indicted him by twisting the Scriptures to mean something other then what they actually say, something worldly philosophers are obsessed with. That's one of the main reasons I don't believe in evolution as natural history, people really don't change much.
So you admit Galileo was put on trial for contradicting the churches traditional bible interpretation, not because he contradicted science.Galileo argued that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. The Roman Catholic Church officially pronounced that they alone interpret the Scriptures so Galileo was put under house arrest for insisting on the obvious. Whether it's Darwinism or Aristotelian Scholasticism the world is against God's revelation and Christian apologists stand Contra Mundum, 'against the world',
Notice how the equation is added on by you and is in neither the Strong's nor the Brown-Driver-Briggs references?In response to the clear meaning of the direct quote, lexicon, concordance and dictionary definition:Mark said:You actually need a dictionary to define a day?
Day (yôm yome, יום ) : From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially). Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 31 (Strong's #H3117)It means day, it's defined as evening plus morning equals one day.
Day, a 24 hour period as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. (Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions)
Just did.So provided with the full definitions, highlighting the exact wording you claim is not a part of the definitions:
As I pointed out the verses from Genesis are not part of the Brown-Driver-Briggs refernce, though you keep on posting them as though they were. I have also pointed out they from the King James Bible and a poor translation compared to modern versions.Evening plus morning equals one day, seven days equals one week, thus Creation Week.Mark said:yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום:1. day, time, yeara. day (as opposed to night)1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
b. day (24 hour period)
2. as a division of time 1bc. a working day, a day's journey1. today
d. days, lifetime (pl.)
e. time, period (general)
f. year
g. temporal references
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow
Origin: from an unused root meaning to be hotAnd the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)
You are not saying a lot for literalism if you think your equation definition of day is the plain meaning of the text. You seem to read whatever your pet theories are into the text and assume it's the plain meaning all along. As a result you are unable to support your from the text and get upset all ad homy when challenged.Not that it was ever necessary to consult a dictionary definition, it was obvious from the text all along.
Because I state plain facts that you and Achilles are unable to answer. So far neither you haven't been able to establish your claims about myth, private interpretation, or your equation based definition with a step by step exegesis of the text, just ad homs, handwaving and 'inextricably linked's.Just deny the obvious in circles because circular logic is substantive how?
Give us some exegesis, show where it says it in the text and how it says it. Show us a lexicon with your equation. Don't just keep claiming it they it in the hope you can keep convincing yourself.It's a direct quote, concordance, lexicon and dictionary definition, and plain common sense, but the passage and definitions don't mean what they say. Why? Because Assyrian gets to redefine the clear meaning of the text to mean something, anything, other then what it actually says. That's why!
Yes it is odd that TEs are so much better at recognising the plain meaning of a text than literalist. Perhaps it is because literalists have so much riding on what they want it to say. Or maybe TEs just have a greater respect for the text than literalists.You said it best:Assyrian said:There is no point in wanting to interpret the bible literally if you aren't willing to accept to what the writers are saying. 35
And you are still confusing literal and real, confusing God work of creation with the written narratives describing creation in Genesis. Athanasius saying that Jesus who saved us is the one who created the world, is not the same as saying the descriptions of creation in Genesis are literal. You won't get anywhere until you recognise the difference. But you refuse to even understand the problem I am pointing out.That is the whole argument, you won't accept the literal meaning because you don't want to accept what it says. There is a reason Creation is essential doctrine, it's because it's inextricably linked to salvation:
We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.Athanasius stood Contra Mundum ("against the world") in defense of the biblical doctrine of Christ
Or you could actually address the points and not just pretend you have.Understanding it isn't hard, you either believe it or you don't. From now on when you repeat the question I'll just refer you to this page, feel free to chase it in circles till you drop
Have a nice day
Mark
Psalm 30:5 For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning.Do you see that as profoundly different from Psalms 30: 5-6, which says the same thing about the Old Testament? The message is clear. Don't add or detract from the Scriptures. God intends for them to be preserved, though properly re-translated into current language.
Still trying to conflate Peter's use of myth in verse 16 with his discussion about OT prophecy in v 20. And you still don't understand what the 'private interpretation' is talking about. Peter is saying the prophecy is not the result of the prophet's own ideas.
Except you haven't produced an Lexicons that actually say day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day".
Galileo went on trial for heresy because he denied the majority and undisputed interpretation of church fathers and scholars throughout church history. Again you don't have much credibility insisting on a literal interpretation if you do not understand literal interpretation of passages like Joshua 10:12&13 and Eccl 1:5 by church fathers and how it describes the sun moving across the sky in the day time and travelling back to the place it rises at night.
So you admit Galileo was put on trial for contradicting the churches traditional bible interpretation, not because he contradicted science.
The Galilean LibraryNotice how the equation is added on by you and is in neither the Strong's nor the Brown-Driver-Briggs references?
the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
As I pointed out the verses from Genesis are not part of the Brown-Driver-Briggs refernce, though you keep on posting them as though they were. I have also pointed out they from the King James Bible and a poor translation compared to modern versions.
You are not saying a lot for literalism if you think your equation definition of day is the plain meaning of the text. You seem to read whatever your pet theories are into the text and assume it's the plain meaning all along. As a result you are unable to support your from the text and get upset all ad homy when challenged.
Because I state plain facts that you and Achilles are unable to answer. So far neither you haven't been able to establish your claims about myth, private interpretation, or your equation based definition with a step by step exegesis of the text, just ad homs, handwaving and 'inextricably linked's.
Give us some exegesis, show where it says it in the text and how it says it. Show us a lexicon with your equation. Don't just keep claiming it they it in the hope you can keep convincing yourself.
Yes it is odd that TEs are so much better at recognising the plain meaning of a text than literalist. Perhaps it is because literalists have so much riding on what they want it to say. Or maybe TEs just have a greater respect for the text than literalists.
And you are still confusing literal and real, confusing God work of creation with the written narratives describing creation in Genesis. Athanasius saying that Jesus who saved us is the one who created the world, is not the same as saying the descriptions of creation in Genesis are literal. You won't get anywhere until you recognise the difference. But you refuse to even understand the problem I am pointing out.
Or you could actually address the points and not just pretend you have.
God inspiring scripture doesn't help you when you read things into the texts they don't say. You still need to be able to show your claims from scripture rather than just claim they are 'inextricably linked'.I'm not the one conflating and confusing Scripture, I don't need to because I believe the Scriptures as written. The source of the Scriptures isn't human or natural, it's God and you know that, you just contradict, conflate and confuse the issue every chance you get, it's really all you do.
'Day mean Day Definitions' don't help your claim day is
Galileo's laws of motion ran foul of the Aristotelian status quo, but he wasn't put on trial for it. Instead his mechanics were adopted by all the armies of Europe. His trial was for heresy.He was there for running afoul to the Aristotelian status quo, to comparisons to Darwinian thought are inescapable. You don't know anything about history or the philosophy of science, it's always been more trouble then it was worth to you. All you think you have to do is contradict Christians who believe the Scriptures as written and you think that makes you some kind of an authority. The Darwinians are laughing at you and the Creationists, by and large, will have nothing to do with you.
Since I have shown you Galileo was tried for heresy and contradicting scripture, which you 'knew' was wrong, perhaps you could pay a bit more attention to what I have said about the literal meaning of Joshua and Ecclesiastes, especially since, as the quote from Cardinal Bellarmine pointed out the literal interpretation was the common agreement of Church Fathers and commentaries up until then.Now I have you telling me what the exposition of the text was and I have no reason to trust a word you say. You can't get what I know to be fact right, why should I trust you with the delicate or the obscure? Unless you can confirm any shred of what you are pontificating about, there is no reason to take it seriously. I know what happened to Galileo, I don't think you have a clue.
I have shown you how the Catholic Church was concerned about Galileo contradicting the literal interpretation of the bible in 1615, 18 years before his trial in 1633 and that his trial was for heresy and contradicting scripture. What evidence have you for your conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church wasn't really interested in scripture and the teaching of the Church Fathers and that it was all just a pretext because he annoyed the Aristotelian scientific establishment?That had nothing to do with it, it's kind of like your arguments, boilerplate circular rationalizations of the irrelevant. Unlike the Aristotelian mechanics who had proposed ways of reforming and updating Aristotelian mechanics Galileo said to scrap it. At Piza the Catholic status quo was refuted and found themselves in an indefensible position so they resorted to a slanderous psuedo theological political end run. I've read extensively on the subject as well as the Protestant Reformation and the Scientific Revolution. The department chair back in Indianapolis was a philosophy of science major and we talked about history and philosophy for hours. I'm a Liberal Arts major, this is fish in a bucket for me. You don't think I'm going to put something out there in this forum that I'm not sure of do you?
I love it! Your utter humiliation over day being "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" was just 'bait'.You clearly don't have a clue, I know you don't or you wouldn't have taken the 'day' means 'day' bait. Once you sold out to it, this was over, you haven't been able to make a point since.
I don't know your reason for bringing up textual variation or the Textus Recepticus which is NewTestament. I am talking about the Hebrew for Genesis 1 and the poor translation of Gen 1:5 etc in the KJV. And if it is such a good translation of the Hebrew, why don't modern translations follow the meaning of the KJV?The only difference between the KJV and the so called 'modern translations' is Textus Recepticus. There's a little text variation but there isn't a scholar in Christiandom who is saying that it's a 'poor translation' .
Odd you haven't been able to provide any primary sources other than yourself for day being "defined as evening plus morning equals one day." I do agree if resort to ad homs instead of substantive argument it is evidence you can't support your claims.No, everything you argue has you has the primary source. because it's pure undiluted opinion you assume that's how Scripture is interpreted. That's not how it works. The Scriptures are canon in their original, not in the translation and no lexicon is based on a translation, but you didn't know that. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the manuscripts and the codex copies of Scripture, a little text variation, but nothing effecting events described or essential doctrine. You didn't know that either.
The reason I don't have to resort to ad hominem fallacies is because I know how to get back to the originals. Unlike you I have actually studied the Scriptures, history and the philosophy of science so what you think about the subject matter is of virtually no consequence.
I'd love to to have a substantive discussion with you, but you don't even try. I've asked you to provide evidence from Lexicons for "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" or give some exegesis for it from the text, but you don't. I've asked you to show from the text of Peter that he said the OT wasn't myth, or to justify your interpretation of 'private interpretation'. You haven't. And you still claim "Creation and salvation are inextricably linked" without addressing my point about the difference between literal and real, and between the actual creation and the creation narratives in Genesis. Again you refused to engage in any meaningful discussionCreation and salvation are inextricably linked, clutch phrases in circles are not going to change that. Your sinking deeper, this is the part where you arguments start breaking down irreparably. If you didn't sell out to the fallacious rhetoric in the first place you might have a chance of at least keeping it substantive. Better pull up before it sucks you down.
Saying you have been convinced is not much help if you can't articulate a meaningful argument, exegesis, or show a lexicon to support the idea.I've been convinced, I'm just exploring different aspects of the exegesis. Your the one arguing in circles and learning nothing in the process.Give us some exegesis, show where it says it in the text and how it says it. Show us a lexicon with your equation. Don't just keep claiming it they it in the hope you can keep convincing yourself.
No it's not because I accept evolution. I was actually surprised and saddened to see that literalists are so poor at reading the plain meaning of the text and are so willing to twist the text to make it fit what they think it should say.I haven't seen a theistic evolutionist have a genuine insight or even attempt a valid theological point yet, which is certainly available, if you actually studied the Scriptures and the requisite history and philosophy. You don't because you think just because your an evolutionist that makes you better then Bible believing Christians. I find that so much more fascinating then a pile of dead bones and dirt.
I have understood your point all along, and spotted your confusion over literal and real, which you highlight again here asking ''if salvation is literal or figurative''. Salvation is real. The gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are literal, but the Good Shepherd and 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the word' are figurative, because in both those descriptions of salvation, shepherd and lamb are metaphors for Jesus who was neither sheep nor sheep minder.Ahhhhhhhh...so you did get the point, you understood the passage all along. Now let's consider if salvation is literal or figurative.And you are still confusing literal and real, confusing God work of creation with the written narratives describing creation in Genesis. Athanasius saying that Jesus who saved us is the one who created the world, is not the same as saying the descriptions of creation in Genesis are literal. You won't get anywhere until you recognise the difference. But you refuse to even understand the problem I am pointing out.
If you came up with some real arguments I'd have a better chance at understanding them, instead you dodge and pretend to have presented a case, and I have to content myself with pointing that out. I would much prefer if you came up with real arguments then I could take them apart and you could try to defend yourself or point out where I had misunderstood your point. But you would have to make a real point for that to happen.I don't blame you, you are one of the worst on here but it's still not your fault. It would be different if I thought you actually understood the issues but you are remiss in the most rudimentary arguments, I don't think you even know what is being argued here.
I'm an evangelical dude, do you know what that means? It means I argue to and from the Scriptures, there is no way I'm going to be careless or allow an error into one of my expositions. Scientific literature I can take some liberties with but never the Scriptures and certainly not the original.
You think you can just mimic my arguments and they will work for you the same as they work for me, another critical mistake. There's nothing fallacious in my arguments and I deliberately use something I know is irrefutably true and I know you will deny because you think you must. You go for the bait every single time and for conscience sake I will even offer you an explanation for the trap and how to avoid it, you just ignore me which is priceless.
Your down to scratch arguing against the obvious, I didn't tell you to do it, I just set you up for it. As many times you go down that blind alley in the dark, your going to get mugged. I wouldn't do it so much if you didn't make it so darn easy.
Have a nice day
Mark
God inspiring scripture doesn't help you when you read things into the texts they don't say. You still need to be able to show your claims from scripture rather than just claim they are 'inextricably linked'.
'Day mean Day Definitions' don't help your claim day is"defined as evening plus morning equals one day."Are you going to back that claim up or admit you got it wrong? I could understand you dropping the claim and and ignoring my requests you back it up, but I don't know how you can keep pretending you answered it.
Galileo's laws of motion ran foul of the Aristotelian status quo, but he wasn't put on trial for it. Instead his mechanics were adopted by all the armies of Europe. His trial was for heresy.Internet History SourcebooksOf course you can go on believing Galileo was tried for disagreeing with Aristotelian science if you want.
The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above,hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture
Mark Kennedy said:That had nothing to do with it, it's kind of like your arguments, boilerplate circular rationalizations of the irrelevant. Unlike the Aristotelian mechanics who had proposed ways of reforming and updating Aristotelian mechanics Galileo said to scrap it. At Piza the Catholic status quo was refuted and found themselves in an indefensible position so they resorted to a slanderous pseudo theological political end run.
Since I have shown you Galileo was tried for heresy and contradicting scripture, which you 'knew' was wrong, perhaps you could pay a bit more attention to what I have said about the literal meaning of Joshua and Ecclesiastes, especially since, as the quote from Cardinal Bellarmine pointed out the literal interpretation was the common agreement of Church Fathers and commentaries up until then.
I have shown you how the Catholic Church was concerned about Galileo contradicting the literal interpretation of the bible in 1615, 18 years before his trial in 1633 and that his trial was for heresy and contradicting scripture. What evidence have you for your conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church wasn't really interested in scripture and the teaching of the Church Fathers and that it was all just a pretext because he annoyed the Aristotelian scientific establishment?
I love it! Your utter humiliation over day being "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" was just 'bait'.
I don't know your reason for bringing up textual variation or the Textus Recepticus which is NewTestament. I am talking about the Hebrew for Genesis 1 and the poor translation of Gen 1:5 etc in the KJV. And if it is such a good translation of the Hebrew, why don't modern translations follow the meaning of the KJV?
Odd you haven't been able to provide any primary sources other than yourself for day being "defined as evening plus morning equals one day." I do agree if resort to ad homs instead of substantive argument it is evidence you can't support your claims.
I'd love to to have a substantive discussion with you, but you don't even try. I've asked you to provide evidence from Lexicons for "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" or give some exegesis for it from the text, but you don't. I've asked you to show from the text of Peter that he said the OT wasn't myth, or to justify your interpretation of 'private interpretation'. You haven't. And you still claim "Creation and salvation are inextricably linked" without addressing my point about the difference between literal and real, and between the actual creation and the creation narratives in Genesis. Again you refused to engage in any meaningful discussion
Saying you have been convinced is not much help if you can't articulate a meaningful argument, exegesis, or show a lexicon to support the idea.
No it's not because I accept evolution. I was actually surprised and saddened to see that literalists are so poor at reading the plain meaning of the text and are so willing to twist the text to make it fit what they think it should say.
I have understood your point all along, and spotted your confusion over literal and real, which you highlight again here asking ''if salvation is literal or figurative''. Salvation is real. The gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are literal, but the Good Shepherd and 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the word' are figurative, because in both those descriptions of salvation, shepherd and lamb are metaphors for Jesus who was neither sheep nor sheep minder.
If you came up with some real arguments I'd have a better chance at understanding them, instead you dodge and pretend to have presented a case, and I have to content myself with pointing that out. I would much prefer if you came up with real arguments then I could take them apart and you could try to defend yourself or point out where I had misunderstood your point. But you would have to make a real point for that to happen.
No you only used your 'inextricably linked's to back up your claim Peter was referring to OT scripture when he said his eyewitness testimony of the transfiguration wasn't a cleverly devised myth. If you can't back up your assertions don't claim they're 'obvious'.Yes I did but if you want to ignore the obvious that's your prerogative.
Don't see what any of that has to do with you claims:Creation is an ex nihileo, de novo just as the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth are all miracles by divine fiat but Theistic Evolutionists can just deny the clear testimony of Scripture, arguing in circles. Let's move on to why the historicity of Genesis and Creation are foundational to Christian theism and you can make your fallacious denials:We would therefore postulate the following propositions:The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis, R. A. Torrey
- The Book of Genesis has no doctrinal value if it is not authoritative.
- The Book of Genesis is not authoritative if it is not true. For if it is not history, it is not reliable; and if it is not revelation, it is not authoritative.
- The Book of Genesis is not true if it is not from God. For if it is not from God, it is not inspired; and if it is not inspired, it possesses to us no doctrinal value whatever.
- The Book of Genesis is not direct from God if it is a heterogeneous compilation of mythological folklore by unknowable writers.
- If the Book of Genesis is a legendary narrative, anonymous, indefinitely erroneous, and the persons it described the mere mythical personifications of tribal genius, it is of course not only non-authentic, because nonauthenticated, but an insufficient basis for doctrine. The residuum of dubious truth, which might with varying degrees of consent be extracted therefrom, could never be accepted as a foundation for the superstructure of eternally trustworthy doctrine, for it is an axiom that that only is of doctrinal value which is God's Word. Mythical and legendary fiction, and still more, erroneous and misleading tradition, are incompatible not only with the character of the God of all truth, but with the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and absolute authority of the Word of God. We have not taken for our credentials cleverly invented myths. The primary documents, if there were such, were collated and revised and re-written by Moses by inspiration of God.
No I have kept good track on the issues you have brought up and haven't been able to defend.In case you have lost track...
None of which have anything to do with the claims of your I asked you about.... I have accumulated Concordance, Lexicon and Dictionary definitions indicating 'Day' means 'Day', now to the foundational exposition I am adding doctrinal expositions from Christian Apologetics old and new, R.A. Torrey
No point in repeating Athanasius either if you you don't address you confusion between real and literal and between the actual creation that Athanasius is talking about and the literal interpretation of Genesis.and Athanasius:The renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation Athanasius, On the IncarnationIn response you have you as the only authority for your position, based on your assertion alone. A fallacy known as circular reasoning, AKA 'begging the question of proof.
A link to a previous post where you evaded the question.No, I'm just not going to let you bury the considerable proofs accumulated over the course of the thread. Instead of repeating them, I can refute your pedantic denials with a link.
Sound about right from you p.o.v.. A link to Fordham Jesuit University of New York, giving an English translation of the text Galileo's trial verdict showing he was condemned for heresy and contradicting scripture is an 'unsubstantiated claim' No wonder your position remains unchanged and unchallenged in you mind.My position remains unchanged and unchallenged, unsubstantiated claims do not effect it in the slightest.
Except that's not the literal interpretation of church fathers and commentators before Galileo as I have shown you from texts of the time.Galileo's argument was that 'the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work', he has since been exonerated, not that he was ever proved wrong. Galileo never produced Biblical expositions in favor of his views of Cosmology or astronomy. The literal interpretation was in keeping with the contemporary astronomy of their day and it's in keeping with modern astronomy, it's irrelevant. When the sun stands still in Joshua it has nothing to do with whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. Absolutely nothing and you know it.
Exactly what? That you think it was a conspiracy but you don't have any evidence for your conspiracy theory?Exactly!
If you have been able to refute you might have a point.I was feeling kind of guilty for baiting you into an impossible argument. You have been arguing that 'day' does not mean 'day' in Scripture and unable to substantiate any basis for it, yet you persist. After being refuted, decisively every single time you think I'm humiliated? You're really that narcissistic.
Manuscript differences are your idea, I have said all along the issue is the bad translation or archaic English in theFirst of all there isn't a dimes worth of difference in any of the legitimate manuscripts, the modern translations don't use Textus Recepticus specifically because of the variant text. The New King James includes note on the variant text:Genesis 1:2 Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.That's it, not a dimes worth of difference.
Genesis 1:26 Syriac reads all the wild animals of. (NKJV)
And has do nothing to support your claim that day is "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" Which is what I asked you for.Day means Day Definitions includes the Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום, stating clearly 'as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1'
Why not show us some? Relevant source material that is.That's where you and I are different, I actually have source material.
Then perhaps you can show from scripture that Peter was talking about the OT when he saidThat's exactly what you are doing, you are twisting the Scriptures to mean something, anything, other then what they actually say. Your denials are fallacious, circular rhetoric that convinces no one including you.
See, you still can't tell real from literal, or literal from figurative. I have explained it to you a couple of time already in this discussion, as well as in previous discussions. but you don't want to even understand my point enough so you could try to refute it properly. Of course if you did understand it you might realise I was right. Maybe that is what is keeping you back from trying to understand the issue.So salvation is real but creation is fake? Or is salvation only real if you take it figuratively? Can't you be consistent?
What has any of that got to do with what I have kept asking you, to back up your claims:Oh but I do make real points and they are building.It is a revelation of the one, personal, living, God. There is in the ancient philosophic cosmogony no trace of the idea of such a Being, still less of such a Creator, for all other systems began and ended with pantheistic, materialistic, or hylozoistic conceptions. The Divine Word stands unique in declaring the absolute idea of the living God, without attempt at demonstration...(The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis, R. A. Torrey)
Further, we have in this sublime revelation of Genesis the doctrinal foundation of:
- The unity of the human race.
- The fall of man.
- The plan of redemption.
I am beginning to feel like I've stumbled into the middle of an argument between you and your imaginary friend. Certainly the positions you have striven so valiantly to refute have had nothing to do with what I have said to you.No Christian scholar, Theistic Evolutionist or otherwise, would try to argue their position you are tying to. You stubbornly deny the clear testimony of Scripture, why I have no idea. You make indefensible, utterly untrue statements and argue them in circles endlessly, again, why I don't know.
I'll keep bringing the fish and you can keep shooting imaginary buckets.If you want to argue like this I have no problem with it, I'll just keep shooting the fish you bring to me in buckets. Every round will accumulate more resources and a more refined defense of the Creation doctrine.
Have a nice day
Mark
No you only used your 'inextricably linked's to back up your claim Peter was referring to OT scripture when he said his eyewitness testimony of the transfiguration wasn't a cleverly devised myth. If you can't back up your assertions don't claim they're 'obvious'.
Don't see what any of that has to do with you claims:
(1) Day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"
(2) Peter was referring to OT scripture when talked about cleverly devised myth.
(3) Peter's reference to 'private interpretation' refers to our interpretation of rather than the prophet's.
Or
(4) Your continuing confusion between real and literal, and between the Genesis descriptions of Creation and the work of creation itself.
But I suppose if you can't defend the issues you are challenged on, you might as well pretend you were asked about something else.
Need I point out that that Jesus' parables are authoritative without being historically true.
No I have kept good track on the issues you have brought up and haven't been able to defend.
(1) Day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"
(2) Peter was referring to OT scripture when talked about cleverly devised myth.
(3) Peter's reference to 'private interpretation' refers to our interpretation of rather than the prophet's.
(4) Your continuing confusion between real and literal, and between the Genesis descriptions of Creation and the work of creation itself.
None of which have anything to do with the claims of your I asked you about.
No point in repeating Athanasius either if you you don't address you confusion between real and literal and between the actual creation that Athanasius is talking about and the literal interpretation of Genesis.
A link to a previous post where you evaded the question.
Sound about right from you p.o.v.. A link to Fordham Jesuit University of New York, giving an English translation of the text Galileo's trial verdict showing he was condemned for heresy and contradicting scripture is an 'unsubstantiated claim' No wonder your position remains unchanged and unchallenged in you mind.
Except that's not the literal interpretation of church fathers and commentators before Galileo as I have shown you from texts of the time.
Exactly what? That you think it was a conspiracy but you don't have any evidence for your conspiracy theory?
If you have been able to refute you might have a point.
Incidentally, you made your "evening and morning equals one day" claims talking to Lopez, not me. That was bait for me? And if you were going to bait a trap for me, wouldn't you choose ground you could defend?
Manuscript differences are your idea, I have said all along the issue is the bad translation or archaic English in the
KJV's Gen 1:5 And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Compare that to the JPS And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
And has do nothing to support your claim that day is "defined as evening plus morning equals one day" Which is what I asked you for.
Why not show us some? Relevant source material that is.
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?