Evolution

[lucaspa]

That is your right of course. However, I would ask...even if it is to be seen poetically...would He lie?

Well .... There is Ezekiel 20:25: "Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; " But God didn't tell them the statutes were not good. So, did God lie?

Are you saying God wrote all scripture? Let's go back to Mark 10 and Matthew 14.
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him. "

This goes back to Deut 24:1: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. "

"And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?"

So the Bible is not written by God. It is written by humans.

"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."

So, did Moses lie? Yes, in one sense he did; he did not tell the truth about divorce. I would prefer to say that Moses got it wrong. Jesus goes on to tell the real truth about divorce; marriage is forever and a man can't write out a bill of divorce.

Is Genesis 1-3 a lie? Not as theology. But if you insist on reading it for what it is not -- accurate history and how God created -- then you will have God tell a lie. Not a real lie; but one invented by you.

 

[1whirlwind]

I just did: His Creation. By looking only at scripture, you are denying thta God created.

Hardly! I don't deny that God created....I deny evolution. I repeat....He would not tell us it was accomplished in one way, as written, while He actually did it in another. He doesn't lie.

Then you are blind.

Because I see male and female as they have always been? They grow taller, live longer, etc but...they don't evolve into other creatures. We are speaking of man from apes...evolution. One creature to another creature.

Then again, you are not using your eyes. The fossil record clearly shows, by transitional individuals, that people have not always been as they are now. At one point they were so different as to be in a different genus. As for dogs, you are ignoring that dogs are in the process of becoming something else. The various breeds of dogs are already splitting into 4 or more new species. Not every breed of dog can mate and produce fertile offspring with every other breed of dog. Genetically, dogs are already 4 different species: 3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://wooferhouse.net/Links/DogOrigins/DogsFromWolves.htmlhttp://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf

Are they still dogs and still people? Or, did a wolf become Jack Nickleson for real?

You are so cute when you quote scripture out of context and not knowing what you are doing. "For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
" Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19.

Untrue statement? That what is written is truth? Is that untrue?

"Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. "

Of course, I worry for you how God is going to view bringing false witness against scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 affirms what we have been saying. Notice that it does not say that 1) scripture is the only reference or 2) that it is always literally or historically correct. Instead, it says that we are to use scripture for religious purposes: " profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Please quote the "false witness against scripture" you are attributing to me. I am using Scripture for the purposes above. His Word tells us how the creation came about...evolution tells a different story. Which is true?

Nor does it say that scripture was written by God. But then, Jesus already told us that in Mark 10 and Matthew 14.

Please provide the verses you reference.

I suggest you put yourself in the time and place of Paul and consider 1) what was scripture at that time, 2) who Paul was writing and preaching to, and 3) what Paul was preaching. That will tell you what Paul was saying.

Thank you for the suggestion but...it would be an error.

Wasn't the universe itself "told us in the very beginning"? Genesis was only inspired long after the beginning. So, the earth and the rest of the universe is "what is told is in the very beginning". Creation. Creation came before Genesis. And it is in that "very beginning" that tells us evolution is correct.

No. The creation of the world was before Genesis. The creation of mankind wasn't.

LOL! Nice attempt at distraction. No, you don't capitalize what you like all the time. You follow conventions on capitalization except when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar and invent this false witness to hide your guilt. Sorry, but His word is scripture. Small "s". We capitalize the small letters only when we are referring to God.

I wasn't trying to distract you. I was just continuing with being "you are so cute." I shall continue to capitalize what words I want to capitalize and you just continue to do as you do.

But God has two books. So what you are "pulling" is ignoring God and making a false idol out of your interpretation of scripture. That's violating the 1st Commandment.

No....evolution violates it by making false images. By placing birds, reptiles, apes in the IMAGE OF GOD.

1. Why isn't God's Creation also God telling us how it happened? Why do you keep denying God? One answer that fits the facts is that you have made your interpretation of the Bible your god.

His creation does tells us and it doesn't conflict with His Word. There is One God and He never looked or acted or was the image of....an ape.

2. Why did God tell us (at least) three ways of "how it happened" in scripture? And why do those 3 ways contradict? I view that as God telling us "don't read the creation stories literally, dummy! Look at Creation to figure out how I created."

What three ways?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Yes, they are. Because they are without form or body is why we are forbidden to make a statue or other likeness of God. There is no likeness to make. According to you, there is such a likeness.

I really didn't realize how far from Christianity you are.



Really? Then do you practice the dietary laws? Do you condone slavery? Have you sold your daugher into slavery? If you are a farmer, do you let your field lie fallow every year? You are doing a lot of wrong things then, aren't you?

Yes I practice the dietary laws.
No, I don't condone slavery.
No, my daughter wasn't sold.
Yes, I have a large garden which I allow to lie fallow every seventh year.

As those examples show, much of the Bible is just for the people of that time. The rules and laws for those people no longer apply to us.

You need to separate laws and statutes from ordinances.

To ignore the meaning of that time and make up a new meaning is what is wrong. First you figure out what God meant to tell the people at the time. Then, if those messages work for now, fine. If not, then we ignore them as being from that time. Many times there are theological messages that are, indeed, eternal. The irony here is that, in focussing on Genesis 1 as history, you are ignoring those eternal theological messages and actually missing what God was trying to tell us.

Really. He is trying to tell us..."oh, by the way...I know I told you I created man and woman at the same time to be fruitful but...I lied. Evolution is really how it happened."

It doesn't concern this thread. No one here has made God into "an image made like to corruptible man, etc." Well, no one but you that is. You think God has an image like "corruptible man". See the first comment in your post! But none of the evolutionists here (all being Christians) have done this.

Do I see Him as being corruptible? No...nor do I see Him as being an ape.

Even atheists like Dawkins don't make God into an image made like to corruptible man.

BUT, the people of Rome were doing this. They made images of birds, beasts, and humans and called those images "God". Jupiter is the image of a human, right? Some pagan sects had the image of a bull.



Well, if we are in His image, then He is like us. Sorry, but there is no way to get around that. In fact, that is exactly why you want us to be in His image: so we can be like God.

We are given power to become a son of God. In His image.

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name:

​

Again, you need to look at the time and context. In this case the context of how Jewish priests in the OT wore their robes:
Revelation 1:13 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary
"

and girt about the paps with a golden girdle;
as the high priest was with the girdle of the ephod, which was made of gold, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, ( Exodus 28:8 ) ; and with which the priests were girt about the paps, or breast, as Christ is here described: it is said of the priests in ( Ezekiel 44:18 ) , "they shall not gird themselves with anything that causeth sweat"; which some render "in sweating places": and so some Jewish writers interpret it, which will serve to illustrate the present place;

``says R. Abai F14, (upon citing ( Ezekiel 44:18 ) ) they do not gird themselves in the place in which they sweat; according to the tradition, when they gird themselves they do not gird neither below their loins, nor above their arm holes, but over against their arm holes;''
​

the gloss says, upon their ribs, against their arm pit, that is, about their breast, or paps; and which is still more plainly expressed by the Targum on the above place, which paraphrases it thus,

``they shall not gird about their loins, but they shall gird (Nwhbbl le) , "about their heart".''
​

So Josephus F15 says, the high priest's garment was girt about the breast, a little below the arm holes."

The chest, the breast, the torso, the heart, etc.....are not the paps. More is being said then you are understanding.

1 Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. "

You keep illustrating that verse.

Yes, but you are also giving an interpretation on how humans were created. What's more, you are taking it completely out of the context Jesus was using. So yes, you lost sight of Jesus' message. Just as you lose sight of God by continuing to promote "Words" and "Scripture" to the status of God.

No, I'm not interpreting anything. What is written is written and nothing you or Darwin tells us can change that. Either take Him at His Word...or take Darwin's.

Give the capitalization a break. Jesus is the Word, and the Word is Scripture so.....they are what they are.

You need to get back to worshipping God, not your false god of "Scripture" and "His Words".

I never left Him. And, I'll listen to Him instead of man on the subject of His Words and Scripture.....

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the scriptures?

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.



.
​

 

[1whirlwind]

I'm not being rude. Sorry if it comes across that way, it's hard to tell in typing. But, You're the one calling evolutionists evil. Don't you think that's also rude?

No. I call evolution a lie and a lie is evil.

The history of the Bible's creation tells us otherwise.

No it doesn't.

 

[Assyrian]

There is skewing and then there is understanding. There are two chapters of creation because they speak of two different things. In the first chapter is the creation of mankind, all races. In the second chapter is the formation of Adam, the specific man from whom Christ would come. The Bible is about His family and it begins in chapter two.

The Hebrew uses the same word adm Adam or man and h'adm the man in both chapters, though the idea of two Adams was common in first century Judaism and was picked up and adapted by Paul in 1Cor 15. But the problem with interpreting Genesis 1&2 literally is when the plants animals and birds are created in relation to Adam and Eve, I don't think two creations of mankind and then Adam and Eve help that.

Yes, Luke shows the geneaology of Joseph, step-father to Christ, who was descended from king David. But, in that genealogy we are also shown the lineage of Abraham from Adam and from Abraham to David. Then in Matthew we can go from David to Christ.

His genealogy is given.

So Jesus' genealogy is not so much given as reconstructed? Even if the whole of Luke's genealogy is not supposed, I don't think it can be taken literally when get to the Adam end the genealogy portrays Adam and the Son of God the same way it portrays Joseph as the son of Eli and Eli as the son of Matthat.

But I think the bigger problem is the supposed, there is nothing in the genealogy to suggest it is only refers to Jesus being the son of Joseph. There is just one verb in the genealogy "being the son of Joseph the son of Eli..." and the 'supposed' is attached to that verb. Luke does not restart when we go from supposition to real genealogy 'being as was supposed the son of Joseph, who actually was the son of Eli, son of Matthat...' Luke is telling us the whole genealogy is what people supposed.

You discuss the meaning of supposed with Papias which I will try to get to next.

The creation of the world by our Father, I believe, must be understood in His reckoning of time.....

11 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
​

Before Adam was God's time...after the formation of Adam is man's time.

I agree with that, though I don't think God's timescale is limited to the creation, if you read psalm 90 it describes our lifetime running from morning to evening. Some of what I said about Genesis 2 shows problems with young earth creationism and a literal six day creation, but they still raise problems for a literal interpretation if you are not YEC.

The "rain" and "man to till the ground" has a much deeper meaning but...at face value you're right....there was no rain. However, He explains that before the rain....

Genesis 2:5-6 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.​

​

If there was a mist watering the ground, then the lack of rain would not be a reason for there being no plants. I think you may have cut the passage short.
Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--
7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground...
The mist wasn't what was there instead of rain, the mist was God's answer to the lack of rain that stopped the plants from growing. We see two reasons given in verse 5 why there were no plants, the ground was dry and there wasn't a gardener. Then in verses 6&7 we see God's answer, the ground is watered by the mist and God make man.

There are beasts and then...there are beasts. Some animal, some human.

Jonah 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
​

That doesn't refer to animals, at least...not animals such as lions, tigers and bears.

Consider too that on one level Adam was formed to till the ground. The first men were to subdue the earth and had dominion over all creatures. But, with Adam, who was to farm....

Genesis 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
​

Does this refer to domestic animals, those used to farm....oxen, horses, poultry, cows, goats, etc.?

No I don't think so. Livestock, cattle in the AV, are referred to along with every beast of the field. Personally I think livestock are a subcategory of beast, which is why they are not mentioned in verse 19 but included in verse 20, In Genesis 1 they are mentioned along with beasts in verses 24&25, but left out in verse 30. But that is just my take on it.

You still have the problem beasts and birds are created after man in Genesis 2 but before God created man in Genesis 1.

You have a good point. I don't see it that way but still appreciate the thought.

As all things are "created after his kind," then all things cannot evolve one into another creation. They/we were created to be what we are.

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds...
God commanded the earth produce different kinds of living creatures, why can't evolution be the way the earth does this?

I also don't see a problem with kinds being subdivided into further kinds. Genesis talks of birds after their kind but in Leviticus 11 you read of the kite, the falcon of any kind, every raven of any kind. As long as the falcon is still a kind of bird and the species of falcons are still a kind of falcon.

 

[1whirlwind]

Do you believe God is incapable of using the knowledge that humans possess to get his point across?

He will not lie by saying it one way and doing it another...whether or not anyone understood.

No one 4000 years ago had any idea about any modern scientific concept. Considering most humans today can't even understand how evolution or physics work, do you really think an ancient tribal people could? They thought the Earth was flat and stationary with the sun revolving around it. They thought there was a solid dome covering the Earth with water on top of it and windows in the dome to release the water.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

​

As for the rest...you are making assumptions.

Given their understanding of the Earth, what makes more sense: 1) God goes through the painful and arduous process of explaining to them how evolution, geophysics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, string theory, atomic theory, gravity, etc. etc. work - which would make Genesis incomprehensibly long or 2) He just used the knowledge they already had to get his theological point across?

Occams Razor tells us number 2 is the correct answer. God had no reason to explain evolution or any other complicated scientific theory to those people and doing so would only detract from his theological purpose. So why bother?

A complicated theory need not be written out for creation or evolution. But, He told us it was creation....not evolution, no changing over time was mentioned.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

He wasn't rude. He just said he was surprised at what Fundies did. That's not rude, but instead is telling his reaction.

Well....call me overly sensitive then.

Yes, the text has changed. Even now we have differences in the different texts of scriptures. You can see this is the annotations in your Bible.

What is considered scripture has changed and is different among different groups. Compare the list of books as scripture in the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible. They are not the same.

I'm referring to the text...not the various Bible translations.

Over the course of history, also, what was considered part of scripture changed. At one point many gospels and letters that are no longer considered scripture were considered scripture.

I know. It's enough to make you wonder.

 

[Jase]

No. I call evolution a lie and a lie is evil.

A lie is always evil? So when people hid Jews in their attic during the Holocaust, and told the Nazis that nobody was there - they were being evil by saving the Jews life?

No it doesn't.

"Nuh uh" is not a valid argument. The English Bible is proven to have been altered. One example - that whole story of the prostitute who was going to be stoned, and Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"... It doesn't exist in the earliest manuscript - it was a later addition.

And of course, Tyndale and King James altered their Bibles, which is where all English Bible's stem from - so every English Bible has been altered from the original.

You honestly have absolutely no idea about Biblical history - which makes your entire opinion on this issue totally invalid.

 

[Jase]

He will not lie by saying it one way and doing it another...whether or not anyone understood.

But obviously he will lie by doing it one way but saying another?

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

​

As for the rest...you are making assumptions.

Um, WW, Geometry 101 - A circle is a 2 dimensional flat object. You can't stretch out a tent over a sphere.

A complicated theory need not be written out for creation or evolution. But, He told us it was creation....not evolution, no changing over time was mentioned.



.

God didn't write the Bible so he didn't tell us anything. The ancient Hebrews told us how they thought the world existed. God, however, has proven in his physical universe that the Hebrew were wrong. God's physical creation trumps your flawed Biblical interpretation.

 

[1whirlwind]

WW - If there is a seemingly Biblical contradiction then there is a reason. Something is being taught and we need to search for the lesson or something wasn't properly translated.

Excellent! The reason here is that neither creation story is meant to be read literally! They are not literal history but instead are meant to teach valuable theological lessons. Which they do.

There is NO contradiction in the Bible about creation. The contradiction appears when you attempt to add evolution, that is NOT written. I continue to ask you....please provide any Scripture explaining anything other than creation happening as written.

It's not. The editors of your Bible have misled you. The Hebrew word is "beyom". "yom" can be used as an indefinite period, but when the prefix "be" is added it limits the action to a 24 hour day (check any Hebrew-English dictionary, I did). Beyom is used in Genesis 2:1-3 to limit the 7th day of creation to 24 hours. If "beyom" means "when", then the 7th day could be indefinite. It was to avoid the possible indefinite nature of "yom" that the authors of Genesis 2:1-3 used "beyom".

Then we have dueling scholars. I select mine...how about you?

So both Genesis 2:4 and 2:17 mean "immediate" or "within a single day". For Genesis 2:4 that means we have a contradiction with the creation story in Genesis 1. For Genesis 2:17 it means that Adam died spiritually when he ate the fruit.

Yes, he spiritually died when he ate the fruit but he also literally died within the Lord's time of a day...a thousand years.

BTW, the time it took to create is not the only contradiction between the 2 stories.

Just more for us to understand.

By your criteria, one of them must be. Hoist on your own petard. It's you who backed Genesis 1-3 into the corner of "lie".

How?

In terms theological messages, I agree that neither is a lie. Both tell different theological messages that are as true today with what we know about how God created as they were in the Babylonian science of the day.

 

[1whirlwind]

If I heard Jesus tell me the story of the Good Samaritan, and then challenged him to let me meet this "Good Samaritan", because I did not believe such a man could exist and therefore could not accept his story, would Jesus be lying because he had made up this story in order to make a point?

God doesn't lie...we misunderstand or misuse. Tell me, if God did not mean for us to take Genesis 1 as a literal account of how He created all things then is He at fault for lying or are we at fault for making a bad assumption?

Did I ask you not to take it literally?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

And your statement just condemned itself as evil. It's a lie. "Word" never refers to "written Word" in scripture. Nor is scripture itself ever capitalized in scripture. So your view of scripture is a lie and evil. By your own criteria.

Considering that there were no capital letters in the text....how do you know what should or should not be. Better yet, why do you care?

Sure it's your interpretation. You are interpreting what is written as accurate history. But the contradictions in the 2 creation stories tell you that you should not be reading them as history. Not to mention the contradiction with God's other book. Just how plain can God be that you are putting your interpretation above God?

You mean...I am accepting what He tells us as truth? Why...yes I am. When there are what some consider contradictions then...it's time for the person to study what is written to resolve the contradiction. Other than that one would be placing their idea of how things happened over that of God....do you?

1whirlwind, there are different types of truth. Let's take this out of Christianity so we can, hopefully, avoid your emotional response. Let's look at Shakespeare's Macbeth. I hope you have read it. Macbethis set in a fictional Scottish history. Never happened. Yet the play remains popular because it talks about truth -- human truths. Lust for power, corruption that power brings, greed, justice, etc. Those truths are just as true when set in a fictional history as they are in the historical setting of the Watergate scandal.

What is written in the Bible are theological truths. It is your interpretation that Genesis 1 represents accurate history. Just as it is your interpretation that Jesus is referring to literal history and not theology in Mark 10.

God tells you in scripture and in His Creation that your interpretation is wrong. Yet you stick to it. "Scripture" and "His Word" mean more to you than God. Please drop that and come back to God.

Care to quote where He tells us it is wrong? Just one little verse saying...don't really pay attention to what is written but instead listen to man?

Now who is being rude? You didn't answer the question, but instead went for the ad hominem fallacy.

Ask yourself...why?

Apples and oranges. That's not what is being written here. The passage says that all diseases are caused by unclean spirits. You keep ignoring that (what a surprise!). Thus faith allows them to cast out unclean spirits and heal diseases. They heal the diseases because they cast out unclean spirits.

No...it DOES NOT say that.

Matthew 10:1 And when He had called unto Him His twelve disciples, He gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, AND to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Acts 8:7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
​

So scripture contradicts Germ theory. Yet you don't consider Germ theory "evil". You start that Germ theory is not "evil" and then you twist scripture to back you. You start with the idea that evolution is "evil" and twist scripture to back you.

When you read properly, understanding that the unclean spirits are not the same as those with sicknesses then you also see that the "germ theory" isn't a contradiction.

So the question is: why do you really consider evolution to be "evil"? Is it only because you think evolution contradicts scripture? If so, what's the problem? Scripture isn't God. Does evolution contradict God? Does it negate the resurrection? Does it negate salvation? What danger do you think evolution poses to God?

It is a lie. It is a contradiction for evolution does contradict God. It poses no danger to God but to us.....

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

​

If evolution only contradicts non-essential parts of scripture, then what do you care? Unless you care more about "Scripture" than you do God.

It all comes back to what you view as your god.

I care about truth...do you?

 

[crawfish]

Did I ask you not to take it literally?


.

Huh?

 

[1whirlwind]

Well .... There is Ezekiel 20:25: "Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; " But God didn't tell them the statutes were not good. So, did God lie?

No He didn't lie. How did He give those statues to them? Did He Himself speak or did false prophets tell them, did man make up junk to lead them astray? And, the bigger question is why? Why did this happen?

Ezekiel 20:7-8 Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. But they rebelled against Me, and would not hearken unto Me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out My fury upon them, to accomplish My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.


20:11-13 And I gave them My statutes, and shewed them My judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. But the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness: they walked not in My statutes, and they despised My judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and My sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out My fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

20:22-23 Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for My name's sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth. I lifted up Mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;
20:25-26 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
​

Are you saying God wrote all scripture? Let's go back to Mark 10 and Matthew 14.
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him. "

This goes back to Deut 24:1: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. "

"And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?"

So the Bible is not written by God. It is written by humans.

It is penned by humans but given by God.

11 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

​

"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."

So, did Moses lie? Yes, in one sense he did; he did not tell the truth about divorce. I would prefer to say that Moses got it wrong. Jesus goes on to tell the real truth about divorce; marriage is forever and a man can't write out a bill of divorce.

I don't understand that so really can't comment. I know God Himself spoke of divorce in a symbolic sense....

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

​

Is Genesis 1-3 a lie? Not as theology. But if you insist on reading it for what it is not -- accurate history and how God created -- then you will have God tell a lie. Not a real lie; but one invented by you.

And, if you insist upon taken man's idea of how God created the world in place of what is written then.....you believe a lie.

 

[Assyrian]

The phrase, "as was supposed," placed in parenthesis to draw special attention to it means....as reckoned by law. Joseph was "begotten" by Jacob his natural father but he was the son-in-law (reckoned by law) son of Heli. So, Heli would be the father of Mary.

You don't actually have parentheses in the original Greek, though that is not so important. More significant is Luke's use of supposed, which isn't used in the bible to refer to legal status. Here is how Luke uses the word in his Gospel and Acts, though you wil find the same usage in its other occurrences, Matthew and Paul's epistles.

Luke 2:43 ...the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, 44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances.
Act 7:25 He supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand.
Act 8:20 But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
Act 14:19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.
Act 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.
Act 16:27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
Act 17:29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
Act 21:29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

 

[Polycarp1]

Why am I not surprised that you continue to be rather rude. Why do you feel it is necessary?


Scriptures are Scriptures and have always been. Whether they are collected in a Bible, or on a roll of papyrus. They don't change...at least until man began to translate new and improved versions. The text doesn't change.


.

I've never been able to understand why Creationists believe in what seems to be so limited a God -- one who cannot perfectly see all the consequences of His actions, and whose powers are limited to magicking things into the physical universe they give lip service to Him having created and being lord over. I'm certain that God created the Universe and the diversity of life we see. I'm pretty sure that the means He did it by included the Big Bang and modern concepts of evolution.

As for the Scriptures, Jace is of course referring you to II Timothy 3:14-18, where Paul is advising Timothy to found his teachings on the Jewish Scriptures he learned at his mother's and grandmother's knees, and which he and his hearers will have in common. Paul did not even write verse 16 as a complete sentence, and Miles Coverdale mistranslated it as one.

As for Scripture, consider Wisdom 19:19: "For earthly things were turned into watery, and the things, that before swam in the water, now went upon the ground."

 

[1whirlwind]

Huh?

It is both. To be seen literally and also figuratively.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

I've never been able to understand why Creationists believe in what seems to be so limited a God -- one who cannot perfectly see all the consequences of His actions, and whose powers are limited to magicking things into the physical universe they give lip service to Him having created and being lord over. I'm certain that God created the Universe and the diversity of life we see. I'm pretty sure that the means He did it by included the Big Bang and modern concepts of evolution.

Are you indeed? Then why do you believe anything that is written? Apparently He lies to us and we need man to teach the proper way. Oh, I forgot....

Mark 13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:

​

As for the Scriptures, Jace is of course referring you to II Timothy 3:14-18, where Paul is advising Timothy to found his teachings on the Jewish Scriptures he learned at his mother's and grandmother's knees, and which he and his hearers will have in common. Paul did not even write verse 16 as a complete sentence, and Miles Coverdale mistranslated it as one.


As for Scripture, consider Wisdom 19:19: "For earthly things were turned into watery, and the things, that before swam in the water, now went upon the ground."

Or, as for Scripture....you could consider.....

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
​

I wonder if Timothy heard about that on his grandmother's knee?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

You don't actually have parentheses in the original Greek, though that is not so important. More significant is Luke's use of supposed, which isn't used in the bible to refer to legal status. Here is how Luke uses the word in his Gospel and Acts, though you wil find the same usage in its other occurrences, Matthew and Paul's epistles.

I know the original didn't show parentheses for it didn't have punctuation but it is important. In the text it is noted and therefore was placed in parentheses when printed.

Luke 2:43 ...the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, 44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances.
Act 7:25 He supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand.
Act 8:20 But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
Act 14:19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.
Act 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.
Act 16:27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
Act 17:29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
Act 21:29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

Well, I suppose there is such a word as suppose and I suppose there are many instances of the word being used. However, do any of the verses you quoted say, "as was supposed" and were they placed in parentheses? Was any special attention drawn to them as it was in Luke?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

A lie is always evil? So when people hid Jews in their attic during the Holocaust, and told the Nazis that nobody was there - they were being evil by saving the Jews life?

Were they lying about the Word of the Lord? Were they contradicting what is written?

"Nuh uh" is not a valid argument. The English Bible is proven to have been altered. One example - that whole story of the prostitute who was going to be stoned, and Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"... It doesn't exist in the earliest manuscript - it was a later addition.

I didn't say nuh uh...now did I? I didn't realize the whole story was a lie and I'm afraid I don't believe you. But, I could be wrong. I know that the Catholic church taught this was Mary Magdelene...a prostitute when she wasn't. They apologized not too long ago for that.

And of course, Tyndale and King James altered their Bibles, which is where all English Bible's stem from - so every English Bible has been altered from the original.

You honestly have absolutely no idea about Biblical history - which makes your entire opinion on this issue totally invalid.

Then...why do you bother to reply? And by the way, that wasn't rude at all.

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

11 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

​

Instead of man's books, endless books that never come to the truth, I allow Him to teach me.....

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me:



.
​