I struggle with...

[Aman777]

so again you refuse but don't admit it...moving on...if and when you are ready to show using common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school let me know. Otherwise, you can start another thread where your interpretation is the topic and I will think about whether or not I want to join.

Perhaps it is you who should start another thread to tell everyone about your prowess in common literary rules for comprehension taught in Elem. School. The one to which we are currently posting has this theme:

BD:>>...trying to understand the creationist mentality. I've been struggling with this for years. Is anyone prepared to give an honest, clear explanation as to why they believe in creationism?

IOW, your crass judgment of me is back at you, judging you by the same standards, which you set for me. Do you have a problem accepting the opinion of others? God Bless you

 

[razzelflabben]

Perhaps it is you who should start another thread to tell everyone about your prowess in common literary rules for comprehension taught in Elem. School. The one to which we are currently posting has this theme:

BD:>>...trying to understand the creationist mentality. I've been struggling with this for years. Is anyone prepared to give an honest, clear explanation as to why they believe in creationism?

it doesn't get any clearer than common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school...and as to this part of the discussion...you are free to give an explanation for why and what you believe as per the OP question but as I said, the question you jumped in on was directed at me and what I believe not about what you believe. All I did was point out that you and I have differing opinions and therefore the answer to the question is NOT the same. Nothing more or less.

BTW, I still don't see an explanation for why you believe what you do, only what you believe.

IOW, your crass judgment of me is back at you, judging you by the same standards, which you set for me. Do you have a problem accepting the opinion of others? God Bless you

HUH? what judgment..? Seriously, I asked you to follow rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school, you refused I pointed out that your reply post did NOT answer the question...nothing about you, your character, your opinion, or anything else, simply that you once again refused to answer the question in your post and I would prefer you didn't respond than to try to confuse the question by not answering but giving a long drawn out response that was not asked for.

If your response is to the OP question then all you simply have to do is quote the OP question rather than me.

 

[Speedwell]

it doesn't get any clearer than common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school...and as to this part of the discussion...you are free to give an explanation for why and what you believe as per the OP question but as I said, the question you jumped in on was directed at me and what I believe not about what you believe. All I did was point out that you and I have differing opinions and therefore the answer to the question is NOT the same. Nothing more or less.

BTW, I still don't see an explanation for why you believe what you do, only what you believe.HUH? what judgment..? Seriously, I asked you to follow rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school, you refused I pointed out that your reply post did NOT answer the question...nothing about you, your character, your opinion, or anything else, simply that you once again refused to answer the question in your post and I would prefer you didn't respond than to try to confuse the question by not answering but giving a long drawn out response that was not asked for.

If your response is to the OP question then all you simply have to do is quote the OP question rather than me.

The rules for reading comprehension taught in elementary schools are all very well for that level of reading, but what is wrong with the more advanced rules of reading comprehension taught in higher grades? Why don't you use them?

 

[razzelflabben]

The rules for reading comprehension taught in elementary schools are all very well for that level of reading, but what is wrong with the more advanced rules of reading comprehension taught in higher grades? Why don't you use them?

what did I say repeatedly? If you read my posts for comprehension you would know that I said that the comprehension skills taught in elementary school are the starting place, or iow's the building blocks for any future discussion about what it could mean. In addition, the comprehension rules will give us only one interpretation which is always a good place to start....so now a question for you...why are you all so opposed to reading scripture for comprehension? Why so opposed to reading scripture for comprehension as a starting point?

 

[Speedwell]

what did I say repeatedly? If you read my posts for comprehension you would know that I said that the comprehension skills taught in elementary school are the starting place, or iow's the building blocks for any future discussion about what it could mean. In addition, the comprehension rules will give us only one interpretation which is always a good place to start....so now a question for you...why are you all so opposed to reading scripture for comprehension? Why so opposed to reading scripture for comprehension as a starting point?

Evidently I misunderstood you. I took you to say that one should only use the rules of interpretation as taught in elementary school. But even so, I am aware of no such rule that allows for only one interpretation of a text.

 

[Aman777]

Evidently I misunderstood you. I took you to say that one should only use the rules of interpretation as taught in elementary school. But even so, I am aware of no such rule that allows for only one interpretation of a text.

Amen, BUT interpretation which gives one's opinion without support, is religion or belief. Since only those who have been born Spiritually can possibly understand the things of the Spirit, WHY should we be held to elementary School man-made rules? I prefer God's rules:

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

 

[razzelflabben]

Evidently I misunderstood you. I took you to say that one should only use the rules of interpretation as taught in elementary school. But even so, I am aware of no such rule that allows for only one interpretation of a text.

lol and yet we talked about that, so why don't you understand? Why don't you know what I said if I am writing for comprehension on an elementary level? Oh well, rhetorical question...as tot he other part of your post, we also talked about this and I presented a passage and showed using common literary rules for comprehension how it means only one right interpretation. Thus my premise is that based on scriptures understanding that with only 1 God there is only 1 right interpretation we should start all reading of scripture with where only one interpretation is found, aka reading for comprehension...it's not a hard concept to follow, seriously it isn't.

 

[razzelflabben]

Amen, BUT interpretation which gives one's opinion without support, is religion or belief. Since only those who have been born Spiritually can possibly understand the things of the Spirit, WHY should we be held to elementary School man-made rules? I prefer God's rules:

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

If we apply what you are suggesting here to what I really did say it would be like you are making this argument....why should we read of comprehension since only those that already believe can understand what scripture says therefore no one can to believe unless they already believe but since they can't believe without understanding scripture and they can't understand scripture until they believe than no one can be saved and God is a liar....let me throw a scripture out for you since I really don't believe that you are intending to say this you just don't want to address what I really am saying, so I will let God show you and see if it helps any....Romans 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

See, they can't understand without God's witness but they can read for meaning.

 

[Speedwell]

but since they can't believe without understanding scripture...

Where did you get that notion?

 

[razzelflabben]

Where did you get that notion?

wow...as I just said, if we take what I said and read it for comprehension and apply what the comment in question to the meaning thereof, that is what it says. You know, without reinventing what I said in order to have an argument. And also as I said, I don't believe that is really what the poster intended but it is what was said in context of my comments that were quoted....if we can't assume there is misrepresentation by intent and I was painfully clear multiple times in what I said, then we must assume the poster was responding to what I really did say and not a reinvention of it and that is the conclusion of the comments as stated in context. See, reading for comprehension is important to effective communication no matter who is communicating with whom.

 

[Speedwell]

wow...as I just said, if we take what I said and read it for comprehension and apply what the comment in question to the meaning thereof, that is what it says. You know, without reinventing what I said in order to have an argument. And also as I said, I don't believe that is really what the poster intended but it is what was said in context of my comments that were quoted....if we can't assume there is misrepresentation by intent and I was painfully clear multiple times in what I said, then we must assume the poster was responding to what I really did say and not a reinvention of it and that is the conclusion of the comments as stated in context. See, reading for comprehension is important to effective communication no matter who is communicating with whom.

I'm not sure what any of that means, not being well-versed in the elementary school rules of reading comprehension, but all I did was as a question: where did you get the idea that it was necessary to understand scripture in order to believe?

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not sure what any of that means, not being well-versed in the elementary school rules of reading comprehension, but all I did was as a question: where did you get the idea that it was necessary to understand scripture in order to believe?

if you don't know what scripture says about who Christ is, how can you believe in Christ? IOW's if you don't know who Christ is, how can you believe in Christ? That is the question...scripture tells us who Christ is and why we should believe....if we can't understand say John 3:16 and what it means how can we believe in order to be saved? That is the question I am asking you and the question Romans is proposing as well.

 

[Aman777]

I'm not sure what any of that means, not being well-versed in the elementary school rules of reading comprehension, but all I did was as a question: where did you get the idea that it was necessary to understand scripture in order to believe?

The malefactor on the cross next to Jesus couldn't do anything, obey any rules, but only believe, but Jesus told him:
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.

No rules, no deeds, nothing but saving faith in Jesus, is the Gift of God to sinful mankind. Eph 2:8 God Bless you

 

[Speedwell]

if you don't know what scripture says about who Christ is, how can you believe in Christ? IOW's if you don't know who Christ is, how can you believe in Christ? That is the question...scripture tells us who Christ is and why we should believe....if we can't understand say John 3:16 and what it means how can we believe in order to be saved? That is the question I am asking you and the question Romans is proposing as well.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that we were discussiong how to read Genesis for historical detail rather than how to read the Gospels for our salvation...

What about all the Christians throughout history and even now who are illiterate? What about Jesus, who said, "Preach the Gospel" not "Hand them this book which they won't be able to figure out until they go to elementary school and wish them luck with it."

 

[Jimmy D]

You're welcome.

Chronogenesis

Wow, that was an old one!

 

[Jimmy D]

Now, I was totally confused by this question when I first read it....so I looked up abiogenesis just to make sure no one changed the meaning of the word on me...sure enough they didn't...

the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
2.
the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed fromnonliving matter.

Thus the question makes absolutely no sense to my claim unless you first recreate my claim and argument...so please clarify how this addresses what I said and do so with comprehension rules as taught in elementary school so I have a clue what you want to argue...

Well excuse me. I was under the impression that when you quoted Stephen Hawking speculating about abiogenesis you had some point to make about abiogenesis. Why did you quote Stephen Hawking exactly?

It's particularly strange as you posted it in response to Speedy's comments about your "probabilities" argument when Hawking goes on to say....

"The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organisation, which built up DNA. Once DNA appeared, it would have been so successful, that it might have completely replaced the earlier forms. We don't know what these earlier forms would have been. One possibility is RNA. This is like DNA, but rather simpler, and without the double helix structure. Short lengths of RNA, could reproduce themselves like DNA, and might eventually build up to DNA. One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. But given 500 million years, and oceans covering most of the Earth, there might be a reasonable probability of RNA, being made by chance."

Oh dear, maybe your reading comprehension is letting you down? Or maybe it's mine? perhaps you would like to clarify, I would hate to misrepresent you.

 

[Jimmy D]

Just to clarify, as this applies to the OP...I personally believe that when we read scripture in this case specifically Gen. for meaning aka comprehension it is supported by the evidence we have thus the theory of evolution and the creation account are equally supported by the evidence we have.

Getting back to the OP.

This simply isn't true, the scientific consensus, does not support the creation account in Genesis 1.

Evidence in the fossil record demonstrates that existence of plants on land did not precede aquatic life and that birds did not precede land animals. Your argument seems to be that science and in particular Paleontology is wrong. If that's the case then the statement I quoted above clearly isn't correct.

Simply asserting that our understanding of the fossil record is incorrect will not cut it I'm afraid, we have a pretty clear understanding of how life on Earth has developed and diversified and the fossil record shows exactly what we would expect to see. If you can present any evidence whatsoever that birds did indeed precede land animals and that land plants preceded aquatic life you might have a point, it would be fair to say that in overturning modern scientific thought on the subject you'd likely earn more accolades than Darwin, Hawking or Einstein.

 

[razzelflabben]

Putting aside for a moment the fact that we were discussiong how to read Genesis for historical detail rather than how to read the Gospels for our salvation...

What about all the Christians throughout history and even now who are illiterate? What about Jesus, who said, "Preach the Gospel" not "Hand them this book which they won't be able to figure out until they go to elementary school and wish them luck with it."

teachers who know how to read for comprehension so that they don't lead others astray...shall I remind you of what the cost of leading others astray is?

No matter how you slice things, reading for comprehension is important to any and all effective communication and this very thread testifies to that truth. Yet a vast number of people are so determined to read into any text what they want it to say that they never take time to read for meaning/comprehension and thus completely miss what the author is trying to say in the first place. All i am saying is that for me personally, I don't want to miss what God Himself wants to say to me. Therefore I will always start with what it says when we read for comprehension and consider anything else after as witnessed by the HS through testing that scripture itself tells us to do. If it fails the test it is dismissed but it is only that which is understood through comprehension of the text that is not negotiable. I can't fathom why you all have such a terrible time with the idea but that is on you all...

 

[razzelflabben]

Well excuse me. I was under the impression that when you quoted Stephen Hawking speculating about abiogenesis you had some point to make about abiogenesis. Why did you quote Stephen Hawking exactly?

oh you all are wearing me out since you aren't reading for comprehension and I have already checked to make sure it wasn't me that was the problem....Let's try this again...Stephen Hawking was presented as evidence that I was asked for about probability. I know the arguments against popular probability studies which quite frankly is bunk if you actually listen to what is being argued but none the less I dismissed them in this discussion because of the bias and presented Hawkings who backed up what I was saying in relation to the studies I have examined so that you couldn't just hand wave them away without listening yet again. I then showed that the probability numbers were backed by science both Hawking and the notion that something does not come from nothing.

Now, I'm not sure how you think that evidence of probability translates into abiolgenesis but I guess that is just more evidence of the importance of reading for comprehension rather than reinventing for the purpose of one's own pride (not speaking of anyone in this thread because I was told you all couldn't dream of being intentional in your reinvention, thus it must just be a lack of understanding on some level don't know what level would not be offensive, but it appears to me that it is intention reinvention so the other person who argued it was unintentional will have to figure out a reason that is not offensive)

It's particularly strange as you posted it in response to Speedy's comments about your "probabilities" argument when Hawking goes on to say....

"The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organisation, which built up DNA. Once DNA appeared, it would have been so successful, that it might have completely replaced the earlier forms. We don't know what these earlier forms would have been. One possibility is RNA. This is like DNA, but rather simpler, and without the double helix structure. Short lengths of RNA, could reproduce themselves like DNA, and might eventually build up to DNA. One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. But given 500 million years, and oceans covering most of the Earth, there might be a reasonable probability of RNA, being made by chance."

Oh dear, maybe your reading comprehension is letting you down? Or maybe it's mine? perhaps you would like to clarify, I would hate to misrepresent you.

lol I highlighted the part that I was using as evidence...did you miss that in your wise reading for comprehension and just forgot to read it for evidence to what I am claiming? You know that usually when someone highlights a portion of a passage there is an important reason, right? It's simple comprehension.....even the other poster recognized it and spoke about what it tells us of probability...trying to goad me into another discussion by reinventing what I said is not going to bode well for you....

 

[razzelflabben]

Getting back to the OP.

This simply isn't true, the scientific consensus, does not support the creation account in Genesis 1.

Evidence in the fossil record demonstrates that existence of plants on land did not precede aquatic life and that birds did not precede land animals. Your argument seems to be that science and in particular Paleontology is wrong. If that's the case then the statement I quoted above clearly isn't correct.

Simply asserting that our understanding of the fossil record is incorrect will not cut it I'm afraid, we have a pretty clear understanding of how life on Earth has developed and diversified and the fossil record shows exactly what we would expect to see. If you can present any evidence whatsoever that birds did indeed precede land animals and that land plants preceded aquatic life you might have a point, it would be fair to say that in overturning modern scientific thought on the subject you'd likely earn more accolades than Darwin, Hawking or Einstein.

oh come on, you have to be better at reading for comprehension than this...what did I say? I said that I find the fossil record inconclusive because X, Y, and Z...I then compared that to why I also find the prophecy to be the weakest evidence for God and scripture and then...just to not leave any doubts, I went to non creation sites and showed that even scientists find the fossil record to be very weak evidence. Wow...your attacking me for agreeing with scientists that the fossil record is very weak evidence and you think that is wise? How? What do you gain from mocking me for agreeing with science and scientists?