Do you have any clue how this relates to the post you quoted? Because I sure don't.Who cares?
More trivial finger pointing. It it weren't so obviously pitiful what you are doing it would be entertaining.
Do you have any clue how this relates to the post you quoted? Because I sure don't.
BobRyan said: ↑
That is not a quote from Ex 20:9-11 or Ex 20:8-11. This thread is about the legal code that we find there.
In that legal code - God Himself is speaking - and He says "six days YOU shall labor... for in SIX Days the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them."
Colte - at least "admits" to the contradiction -- as did Darwin admit to it, and so also does Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers etc.
you are sticking with 'creationists can't read' - as if that is believable.
So fine then we turn to - the atheist/agnostic professors for Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities. Let's hear what they have to say.
=====================================
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=======================
That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.
Is that what faith is to you? "no reason"?In other words, you have made an arbitrary choice with no reason behind it.
Is that what faith is to you? "no reason"?
I'm glad God thinks otherwise.
Hebrews 11:38a Of whom the world was not worthy:
I should report you for this, but I won't.No it is only what faith is to you. I have reasons for my faith, you do not; I know this because you have been given ample time to explain your reasons for accepting KJV over Hebrew and Greek and have not shared them.
I should report you for this, but I won't.
Agreed.
But junk-science that "never happened in nature" - is.
Here again - your "attack the Bible so I can believe in evolutionism" approach here is "much predicted".
Darwin himself admits that this is how it must be.
Well it not a very good one. It is a junk-science religion filled with fraud as in the case of the horse series still on display at the Smithsonian.
Hailed as the best example of evolutionism observed/found/confirmed -- only to later have to admit that the sequence they 'dreamed up for emotional effect' in fact "never happened in nature".
Try getting the Physics department to claim that "gravitational constant was never measured and confirmed" -- not going to happen in "real science"
So good thing we are not reading something they just 'made up'.
2 Peter 1
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
As God's Word says.
All I have to do is "read" -- the Bible and accept it instead of rejecting it.
Your constant attack on the Bible in defense of blind faith evolutionism - is much predicted.
Even Darwin noted that this is the necessary result.
If you have the truth, what does it take to convince you of a lie?IOW, you are not open to any new evidence ever because you have already determined that there is nothing that you could imagine that could convince you. Please tell me how I twisted that.
Over the centuries, there has been no question that the KJV is an extremely accurate retelling of the Scriptures; as accurate as the differing languages would allow. It wasn't until recently that those who refuse to believe the word of God began to twist the original definitions to make it fit with their true religion; evolution. Evolution is very important to them because if man is evolved then there is no Creator and no ultimate consequence to sin. It's easier for them to reject it all if the supplant it with a supposed "enlightened" Bible which says essentially nothing.You should share reasons for being KJV only, which I haven't seen.
How many times here have I said, "Now you know one of the reasons I'm a KJVO"?Over the centuries, there has been no question that the KJV is an extremely accurate retelling of the Scriptures; as accurate as the differing languages would allow. It wasn't until recently that those who refuse to believe the word of God began to twist the original definitions to make it fit with their true religion; evolution. Evolution is very important to them because if man is evolved then there is no Creator and no ultimate consequence to sin. It's easier for them to reject it all if the supplant it with a supposed "enlightened" Bible which says essentially nothing.
My gosh there's that horse again.
And yes, the creation story was basically made up, it was written by the arrogant chosen people for the arrogant chosen people. Jesus never said we should attach his gospel to the Old Testament.
It's not "junk science" to sincere truth seekers. ..
It is a fact that the fossil record deposited over many different ages show signs of diverse life that lived at different times. That alone, without evolutionary speculation contradicts the Hebrews guesswork in Genesis.
Patterson said:I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,
"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist
Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================================
“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.
Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.
You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]
============================
Don't forget scripture must be interpreted by context as well as words. Gen 1 gives the overview of creation and the chronology of it. Gen 2 focuses on man and some other items left,out of the overview. God does not contradict himself so the easy explanation is God was reiterating the fact that he created the animals. Why would God try and reexplain himself? God doesn't have to say in Gen 2 "I created animals on day whatever and the birds on day whatever and the fish on day whatever and brought them t o,man to name" He's already told us what day they were created. He was pointing out in Gen 2 the difference between men and animals. Which is a DIRECT contradiction to evolution. The fact that man named all the creatures after his creation directly flys in the face of evolution.When the literal text says
Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them"
yes that is a creation account. Literally.
Your problem is you are not interpreting the words literally. How dare you to stop using your own rule about interpreting the bible literally? You can't just pick and choose what you want to be literal and what you don't want to be literal . . . . and then deny others the same right. If you get to do it, I get to do it. Fair's fair.
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?