If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

Vedant said:

Evolution is a valid science. Actually, evolution has been observed in the lifetime of a human being, and happens all the time. The problem that people have is that there are gaps in the complete theory of evolution. It's easy to understand that all mammals came from the same ancestor. However, linking a mammal to a tree is much more difficult. The transition animals are very difficult to find (i.e. mammal/reptiles). The other part is how the first organism actually began.

Anyone that completely denies evolution is either stupid or ignorant, because parts of the theory have actually been observed during the lifetime of a human in the past century. That is, like 50 years, not eons. There are numerous case studies about this, and new species of animals have been created as a result of human activity.

The broad implication of evolution is harder to stomache since we really can't tell yet.

Anyway, I can't believe that it's the 21st century, and we still have religious people trying to fight scientists, when time after time after time again, they've made discoveries that have changed our world. People need to just chill out about it.

The earth goes around the sun. Not the other way around.

Click to expand...

Respectfully: I am a physian, a scientist. I cannot trust a lab technitian not to make a mistake and report accurately even a simple blood test all the time. The God of the Bible has never failed me. Should I believe that my cell phone came about by evolution without any help from a superior intelligence any less than many believe that a single cell, which is infinitely more complex than a cell phone did?

I do not wish to quarrel with such as choose to have faith in evolution. My God gives them freedom to believe whatever they want to believe, and still cares for them and feeds them, and gives them sunshine and rain. My God is very kind. Give Him a chance and you will become a believer too. But if you don't, I still love you.

PS I don't believe in legislating religion. It is something that has to come freely from the heart, or it doesn't exist at all

DanPev said:

Should I believe that my cell phone came about by evolution without any help from a superior intelligence any less than many believe that a single cell, which is infinitely more complex than a cell phone did?

Click to expand...

That depends. Does your cell-phone reproduce itself? Can't have evolution without reproduction. You also can't have biological reproduction without evolution. And evolution actually depends on errors in DNA replication.

I do not wish to quarrel with such as choose to have faith in evolution.

Click to expand...

I do. No one should put faith in evolution. Evolution is science not religion. Only people who are uninformed about evolution speak of having faith in the theory. But whether they are for or against having faith in evolution, their's is an uninformed opinion and it is not a basis for taking a position on evolution.

The only correct basis on which to make a decision about evolution is one of information. Learn enough about evolution to be able to present the theory correctly. (You will not find a correct presentation of the theory in creationist sources.) Then learn what evidence scientists cite in support of evolution. Finally, learn why they consider this evidence supportive of evolution.

Then you can stop talking nonsense about having faith in evolution and make an informed decision about whether the theory is sound and adequately supported.

DanPev said:

Respectfully: I am a physian, a scientist.

Click to expand...

According to your profile you are a 17 year old kid who volunteers in a medical office.

ps

Physicians are not scientists.

DanPev said:

Should I believe that my cell phone came about by evolution without any help from a superior intelligence

Click to expand...

This is atheistic evolution, not theistic evolution.

Late_Cretaceous said:

Here is a brief list of major universities that have entire departments (within their Science Faculties) devoted to teaching evolutionary thoery and conducting innovative research into evolution.

Are all these scientists and graduate students grossly misled, or just plain stupid? Maybe it's a conspiracy?

Click to expand...

Are you trying to suggest that there is some sort of a conflict between science and the Bible? Just what do you feel the conflict is between being a man of science and a man of God. Are you suggesting that christians can not teach in one of these universities? Do you feel that christians should not attend one of these universities? What if you attend one of these schools and then later on become a christian. Do you renounce your degree?

assyrian writes:

That sounds like you mean 'interpretation' rather than a translation. The translation is 'under the whole heaven' its meaning is another matter. Incidentally the JPS Jewish Publication Society bible opt for the non restrictive punctuation for the ", who, when they hear the report of thee, " clause.

Click to expand...

Well just what I was saying-- I do not know what you mean by restricitve but the fear of the nations becomes actualized whn they hear report of Israel!! The second part of the verse is the actusalizing of what God begins in the first part of the verse and is limited by the who clause!!! God began something to all the nations

Don't you get tired of this?

Click to expand...

More often than you get tired of erring!!

Sheba wasn't anywhere near the Roman empire and wasn't one of the last nations before Asia. It is fascinating the lengths and contortions you will go to. The simplest answer is that 'ends of the earth' was a figure of speech, a hyperbole meaning a distant land, but only paraphrases put it that way, not idiomatic or dynamic equivalence translations like NIV. They translate 'ends of the earth' and 'under the whole heaven' literally without interpreting it for us.

Click to expand...

Sheba of Solomons fame was near the boundaries of the empire in Jesus day, but it was not part of the empire that was my bad-- they had a govenor (Justinius) who served as a trade rep. As for it being near Asia-- well there was an ancient nation called Saba (old map) that was in teh far eatern part of the Arabian peninsula right acroos the persian gulf from Africa--thank y9ou for shwoing htese things and letting me go back and find out I had erred.

And we both agree it meant a distant land.

Sounds like you don't know what science or theory actually mean. If you want to talk about proof, you need to look at mathematics, philosophy or alcohol. Science deals with evidence. A theory is accepted if the evidence supports and if it gives a coherent explanation for the data, that is why scientists accept evolution and creationism and astrology doesn't get a look in.

Click to expand...

Well see I was basin g that on my 70's era biology and physics textbooks that said something was accepted by science as true when they could test, observe and repeat teh test with the same conclusions. That was called the scientific method of establishing facts. It appears now they have changed the method of how they accept fact to what makes sense to them.

I've given you Moses and Isaiah aren't they good enough? Luke 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'

Click to expand...

Well I appreciated the verses, but you satill don't know beans about context and fulfillment and how passagesd are modified by clauses and then by the whole context of the prophecy.

Show me your translations that set it up as a limiting clause. All the ones I've seen set it up as non limiting.

Click to expand...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/deu002.htm#2:25

JPS Tanach:
2:25 This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven, who, when they hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.'

1. a part of verse--God begins to do something (starts to put a fear in the nations of the earth)

2. "who" (refers to said nations)

3. WHEN limits to when a nation will be in fear. Itr limits the who's to a when!! Anation will fear when they hear a report.

It was translated from the Masoretic.

Click to expand...

This was my bad as well ! my 1984 Schofield NIV shows that it compared passages with the Septuigant. I was guilty of scanning and not reading here.

God was serious. That doesn't mean he meant it the way that suits your theology, we need to understand God meant.

Click to expand...

Maybe we should start a thread on context and fulfilment and idioms.

So your interpretation of the passage has absolutely nothing to back it up, no fulfilment mentioned in scripture, just your utter self confidence that God must have done it that way because that is the way you read the verse. But it is the same with all the other passages you accuse me of twisting, you cannot support them but I must be twisting the scriptures because you know your tradition must be right.

Click to expand...

All this twistin gbecause I said I didn't know the hows of the fear and anguish being worked out?? Man don't you tire of reading into my statements?? Well I am sorry I wasn't there to count the number of times there knees knocked when they got a report of Israel but tehn again I try not to speculate on that stuff. Oh I can show you several fulfilments in Scripture of people in nations realizing that fear when they heard report of Israel, but can I tell you how much stomach acid it produced? Or how emany sleepless nights they had?? Nope I leave that to you.

If it said, "every nation under the whole heavens who shall hear report of thee" it would be limited. As I have pointed out all the bible translators chose to avoid a limiting clause. They separated the clauses. 'Who shall hear of you' is a separate clause that tells us what is going to happen to all these nations.

Click to expand...

Well post one of yoru translators who says the wording is only local. K&D call it local because those who heard were only the local tribes. So find somebody ekse who limits the under the whole heaven phraseology to a local event and the grammatic whys of it.

JPS--2:25 This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven, who, when they hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.'

limits to when

NIV--25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you."

murky but still what will happen is limited to hearinbg reports.

KJV--25This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.

once again the fear and anguish is limited to teh hearing

NASB--25'This day I will begin to put (A)the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heavens, who, when they hear the report of you, (B)will tremble and be in anguish because of you.'

Again showeing the fear is limited to a when.

Youngs literal--25This day I begin to put thy dread and thy fear on the face of the peoples under the whole heavens, who hear thy fame, and have trembled and been pained because of thee.

rough here because it makes it look past tense and not the perfect. But again the fear is limited to the ones who hear.

Well unlike your friendly bible translator, none of the bible versions I have looked at feel the need to rearrange the order of the clauses in the verse, and you accuse me of word twisting?

Click to expand...

look just above and sho wme where I ahve been twisting!


Willtor writes:

In my experience the consensus is that Genesis should be interpreted literally, historically.

Click to expand...

Well Praise the Lord!!! It only took 86 pages but finally a TE admits a literal read of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days!!!! See miracles still do happen!!

vedant writes:

Anyone that completely denies evolution is either stupid or ignorant, because parts of the theory have actually been observed during the lifetime of a human in the past century. That is, like 50 years, not eons. There are numerous case studies about this, and new species of animals have been created as a result of human activity.

Click to expand...

Well I know of no one who completely denies all of evolutionary theory! Boththe evolutionary and creation model of life predict some identical events or changes. Where we differ is how all the biodiversity came from--evolution says by natural selection and mutation we say by ex=deo fiat!
We all have seen speciation- but "micorevolution" is provable by many things other than evolution.

New species by human intervention just proves it takes thought, design, planning and external intervention--all the things creation scientists and creationists say is what had to take place.

Anyway, I can't believe that it's the 21st century, and we still have religious people trying to fight scientists, when time after time after time again, they've made discoveries that have changed our world. People need to just chill out about it.

Click to expand...

See actually christians (your religious folk) love the work of science. Creating new medicines, new polymers, plastics, and so many other things are what science is about. But the secular philosophy of evolution in the "macro" sense of it is what bible beleivers fight.

nolidad said:

Well Praise the Lord!!! It only took 86 pages but finally a TE admits a literal read of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days!!!! See miracles still do happen!!

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You don't give yourself a lot of credibility (interpretation-wise) when you don't understand what we (from your own social and historical context) say. I think you should read my post, again.

willtor writes:

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You don't give yourself a lot of credibility (interpretation-wise) when you don't understand what we (from your own social and historical context) say. I think you should read my post, again.

Click to expand...

well here is what you wrote:

In my experience the consensus is that Genesis should be interpreted literally, historically. I grew up in the conservative Church. As you say, the consensus is not always right. However, there are possibilities besides simply accepting the consensus or simply throwing it out, all because it is the consensus.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that you interpret it literally and historically but what I am saying is that teh "literal historical" reading of Genesis 1 is a six day creation. That is always beent he argumetn between creationists and TE's. A straight literal reading of Genesis 1 is six 24 hour days.

Keep in mind that every time we approach the Scriptures, every time we treat every single word, we are doing interpretation. Whether it is a different interpretation from what is orthodox is another question. For that, we have to read the works of those who came before. More than that, we have to explore how our reasoning has changed over the centuries. Today, we think of a round Earth, and it is "plain" and "obvious." But it wasn't always so. Augustine works really hard to try to stop Christians from arguing that the Earth is flat. Apparently, they're using their "plain" and "obvious" readings of Scripture to prove it. The realization that the Earth is round means that we look at Scripture differently from many of Augustine's contemporaries.

Click to expand...

Well your argument is fallacious on several grounds.

1. Scriptures were only in the hands of the rich and in churches that could afford them.

2. Augustine wrote in the early catholic system which was loaded with greek philosophical heresy.

3. Augustine was right here because he was arguing from the scriptures and not from what was the reasonable observation.

The question is not what changes and what stays the same. The Word remains the same, and we hope that new insights will more clearly reveal him. But it doesn't help to hold onto misconceptions for the sake of a perceived truth. What matters is the truth itself.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more and as the Psalmist declares "thy word is truth." When you state that God was saying things on the basis of pagan understanding of cosmology you make God a buffoon. God knew what He would inspire as Scripture and what He would not! He also knew that in 4,000 B.C. when He was talking with Adam in the Garden how He created and that nearly 6,000 years into the future there would be a hypothesis named evolution that would gain great popularity. If evolution was true God would have been able to communicate the rudimetnary facts of evolution to Adam. Genesis 1 as read as a literal historical passage is diamtetrically opposite of the hypothesis of evolution! On this there should be no argument at all! God knew this and you are asking the bible believing world to accept as fact that God kept His people (His ambassadors and representatives in all ages) inthe dark as to how He brought things into existence (once again we are talking about in six days as is or long ages and through many small changes), and that He revealed the "realtruth" as to origins through an agnostic and that "real trtuh" stands in opposition to what was beleived by the church according to Scripture for 6 millenia? Now if you wish to talk about some other whacky concepts the church has beleived list them one by one and we will dig and see if those whacky beleifs were basded on Scripture or allegorical opinions of Scripture or just simply the introduction of pagan concepts intot he church and accepted.

nolidad said:

Well just what I was saying-- I do not know what you mean by restricitve

Click to expand...

Restrictive clause is English for limiting clause.

but the fear of the nations becomes actualized whn they hear report of Israel!! The second part of the verse is the actusalizing of what God begins in the first part of the verse and is limited by the who clause!!! God began something to all the nations

Click to expand...

Certainly, the 'when they hear' tells us how God's promise is was to be worked out. But it doesn't limit God promise, it simply tells us how it would happen.

More often than you get tired of erring!!

Click to expand...

Understandably.

Sheba of Solomons fame was near the boundaries of the empire in Jesus day, but it was not part of the empire that was my bad-- they had a govenor (Justinius) who served as a trade rep. As for it being near Asia-- well there was an ancient nation called Saba (old map) that was in teh far eatern part of the Arabian peninsula right acroos the persian gulf from Africa--thank y9ou for shwoing htese things and letting me go back and find out I had erred.

And we both agree it meant a distant land.

Click to expand...

Though not actually on the edge?

Well see I was basin g that on my 70's era biology and physics textbooks that said something was accepted by science as true when they could test, observe and repeat teh test with the same conclusions. That was called the scientific method of establishing facts. It appears now they have changed the method of how they accept fact to what makes sense to them.

Click to expand...

Oh that method has not changed. I see what you are saying now. Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. No we cannot go back in time and observe reptile developing into birds, but that doesn't mean we can't test the theory, we can look at the genetic similarities between the two, and look for similarities between the proteins that control tissue developing into scale or feather. We and look in the fossil record for in the strata predicted by the theory, for birds that look more reptilian or dinosaurs with feathers. If Jurassic Park was made a few years later, the velociraptors would have looked like a supporting actor in a Thanksgiving play.

THANKSGIVING II Revenge of the Turkey.​

Well I appreciated the verses, but you satill don't know beans about context and fulfillment and how passagesd are modified by clauses and then by the whole context of the prophecy.

Click to expand...

Context and fulfilment can tell us what the phrase means. It also tell us how the phrase can be used. You cannot modify a phrase like 'under the whole heaven' or 'from the end of the heaven' to mean a small local area, unless the phrase can have carry meaning in the first place. It is meaningless otherwise.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/deu002.htm#2:25

JPS Tanach:
2:25 This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven, who, when they hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.'

1. a part of verse--God begins to do something (starts to put a fear in the nations of the earth)

2. "who" (refers to said nations)

3. WHEN limits to when a nation will be in fear. Itr limits the who's to a when!! Anation will fear when they hear a report.

Click to expand...

When limits it to when they will be in fear. It doesn't limit who will be in fear. Hearing was part of God's promise and plan. Even if it meant the nations were going to hear of the Israelites first, God's promise is still to put dread and fear upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven. If it was only the nations in and around Canaan that were afflicted by dread, fear, trembling and anguish, then 'under the whole heaven' must have meant just that area.

This was my bad as well ! my 1984 Schofield NIV shows that it compared passages with the Septuigant. I was guilty of scanning and not reading here.

Click to expand...

I think most competent versions check how the bible was translated into other ancient languages because it gives us an insight into how ancient translators understood difficult passages in Hebrew. Even the AV does this and follows the Septuagint in Psalm 8:5.

Maybe we should start a thread on context and fulfilment and idioms.

Click to expand...

I think we would probably agree on 90/95% of what you have to say. The problem we have had so far is that you haven't been able to provide contextual data to support your claims that the flood had to be global or that creation was in six literal days. You claim context and grammar support your interpretation but you haven't supported it.

All this twistin gbecause I said I didn't know the hows of the fear and anguish being worked out?? Man don't you tire of reading into my statements?? Well I am sorry I wasn't there to count the number of times there knees knocked when they got a report of Israel but tehn again I try not to speculate on that stuff. Oh I can show you several fulfilments in Scripture of people in nations realizing that fear when they heard report of Israel, but can I tell you how much stomach acid it produced? Or how emany sleepless nights they had?? Nope I leave that to you.

Click to expand...

I wasn't asking for polygraph tests, just some indication from the bible that God actually fulfilled the Deut 2:25 the way you claimed, some indication that distant nations that heard of the Israelite conquest were inflicted with dread, fear, trembling and anguish, or some scripture to confirm that the promise was actually meant to apply to distant nations.

Well post one of yoru translators who says the wording is only local. K&D call it local because those who heard were only the local tribes. So find somebody ekse who limits the under the whole heaven phraseology to a local event and the grammatic whys of it.

Click to expand...

Are you talking translators of commentaries? It is not the job of a bible translation to tell us whether 'under the whole heaven is global or local, not unless they are writing a paraphrase. The Message says Before the day is out, I'll make sure that all the people around here are thoroughly terrified. Rumors of you are going to spread like wildfire; they'll totally panic." But I doubt The Message will impress you very much

JPS--2:25 This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven, who, when they hear the report of thee, shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.'

limits to when

Click to expand...

The clause is given in non limiting form enclosed in commas. Alos, what you need is not 'when...' but 'if...' or 'if in the extreemely unlikely case, and really, don't hold your breath it's not going to happen with anyone like the Mauri, Bantu or Olmec...' 'When' says it will actually happen.

NIV--25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you."

murky but still what will happen is limited to hearinbg reports.

Click to expand...

It says they will hear. All the nations under heaven will hear and will tremble in anguish.

KJV--25This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.

once again the fear and anguish is limited to teh hearing

Click to expand...

Once again we have a non limiting clause, 'the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee,' instead of 'the nations that are under the whole heaven who shall hear report of thee'. The nations under whole heaven shall hear and tremble.

NASB--25'This day I will begin to put (A)the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heavens, who, when they hear the report of you, (B)will tremble and be in anguish because of you.'

Again showeing the fear is limited to a when.

Click to expand...

Ditto, commas, non limiting.

Youngs literal--25This day I begin to put thy dread and thy fear on the face of the peoples under the whole heavens, who hear thy fame, and have trembled and been pained because of thee.

rough here because it makes it look past tense and not the perfect. But again the fear is limited to the ones who hear.

Click to expand...

Youngs is a literal translation which is why the qal imperfect comes out as a past tense. But again he makes it clear God is talking about every people under the whole heavens hearing and trembling, as with the other translations, the use of commas gives an non limiting description of all the nations hearing and trembling.

look just above and sho wme where I ahve been twisting!

Click to expand...

Well I thought the translation of Deut by your team of Hebrew speakers showed some rearranging.
Today, every nation that hears reports of you on the whole earth, will I put the fear and dread of you and they shall tramble and be anguished because of you.

The 'on the whole earth' is an interpretation rather than a translation, but passable for a paraphrase. The rearrangement of the sentence is the interesting bit. If we look at the NKJV, I've marked the phrases that are rearranged in bold red and blue.

This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the nations under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you, and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'

This day ... upon the nations who shall hear the report of you under the whole heaven, I will begin to put the dread and fear of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'

It is just interesting that the sentence has to be rearranged to show that interpretation, while nearly every bible translation I have seen doesn't rearrange it.

Blessings Assyrian

nolidad said:

I am not saying that you interpret it literally and historically but what I am saying is that teh "literal historical" reading of Genesis 1 is a six day creation. That is always beent he argumetn between creationists and TE's. A straight literal reading of Genesis 1 is six 24 hour days.

Click to expand...

Then why were you surprised when a TE said that it was so? Is there a single TE, here, who doesn't think that a literal historical reading of Genesis reads this way? We simply don't read it that way. We simply don't think it was intended to be read that way. As always, the argument is that no ancient audience could have appreciated such a form of literature. Genesis is a myth. If the contents are also historically factual, non-Biblical evidence will have to bear them out because it's not what Genesis is trying to communicate.

nolidad said:

Well your argument is fallacious on several grounds.

1. Scriptures were only in the hands of the rich and in churches that could afford them.

2. Augustine wrote in the early catholic system which was loaded with greek philosophical heresy.

3. Augustine was right here because he was arguing from the scriptures and not from what was the reasonable observation.

Click to expand...

1. The Scriptures were read to the people every Sunday. It wasn't about Churches being able to afford the Scriptures. It was about copies being passed around. Some of the epistles were actually intended as circular letters. Money doesn't enter into it.

2. That's called "poisoning the well." Assuming you can show that greek heresy was rampant in the orthodoxy you'd still have to tie this particular point to just such an idea. If everything else Augustine wrote was heresy, this point would still have to be judged on its own merits.

3. False. "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. ..." (Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis") How did the non-Christians know about these things? By reason and experience.

nolidad said:

I couldn't agree more and as the Psalmist declares "thy word is truth." When you state that God was saying things on the basis of pagan understanding of cosmology you make God a buffoon.

Click to expand...

And yet this is precisely what He seems to have done. If God, in His infinite wisdom, has chosen to reveal Himself through myth, how shall we argue? We know for certain that myths are foolishness. Anybody who uses a myth must be a buffoon. Everyone knows you can't communicate truth through a myth. If there is one thing we mustn't question, it is that myth is necessarily false.

However, since we are not interested in raising anything up to the level of non-questioning (besides the Word of God, anyway) we'll just have to question whether myth can communicate truth. In so doing, we allow for the possibility that God is not a buffoon.

nolidad said:

God knew what He would inspire as Scripture and what He would not! He also knew that in 4,000 B.C. when He was talking with Adam in the Garden how He created and that nearly 6,000 years into the future there would be a hypothesis named evolution that would gain great popularity. If evolution was true God would have been able to communicate the rudimetnary facts of evolution to Adam. Genesis 1 as read as a literal historical passage is diamtetrically opposite of the hypothesis of evolution! On this there should be no argument at all! God knew this and you are asking the bible believing world to accept as fact that God kept His people (His ambassadors and representatives in all ages) inthe dark as to how He brought things into existence (once again we are talking about in six days as is or long ages and through many small changes), and that He revealed the "realtruth" as to origins through an agnostic and that "real trtuh" stands in opposition to what was beleived by the church according to Scripture for 6 millenia? Now if you wish to talk about some other whacky concepts the church has beleived list them one by one and we will dig and see if those whacky beleifs were basded on Scripture or allegorical opinions of Scripture or just simply the introduction of pagan concepts intot he church and accepted.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't care whether you think we evolved (that's not entirely true, but it is strictly secondary to coming to a greater understanding of what is written in Scripture). Even if the Earth is 6000 years old, that's not the point of Genesis. Even if reason and experience backed up every single point in the Creation story it wouldn't change our need to interpret Genesis, primarily, as a figure. Points in the story are lost when we try to interpret it as an historical, factual account. As has been said before, treating it literally has never been popular (until recently). Treating it as a factual history was impossible until the modern era.

I am not saying that you interpret it literally and historically but what I am saying is that teh "literal historical" reading of Genesis 1 is a six day creation. That is always beent he argumetn between creationists and TE's. A straight literal reading of Genesis 1 is six 24 hour days.

Click to expand...

A historical-indicative reading of Genesis 1 gives a six day creation. But since there are alternative readings there is no de facto declaration that the historical-indicative reading is the straight literal reading.

1. The Scriptures were read to the people every Sunday. It wasn't about Churches being able to afford the Scriptures. It was about copies being passed around. Some of the epistles were actually intended as circular letters. Money doesn't enter into it.

Click to expand...

In the first century no--in the fourth and fifth until the printing press--yes.

Then why were you surprised when a TE said that it was so? Is there a single TE, here, who doesn't think that a literal historical reading of Genesis reads this way? We simply don't read it that way. We simply don't think it was intended to be read that way. As always, the argument is that no ancient audience could have appreciated such a form of literature. Genesis is a myth. If the contents are also historically factual, non-Biblical evidence will have to bear them out because it's not what Genesis is trying to communicate.

Click to expand...

Not!!!

And your evidence that ancoient audiences would not have read this as a historical account of creation is???

If Genesis is not communicating what it is saying then it is uincapable of saying anything--unless one wishes to make up meaing on the fly as have many fringe groups since the first century.

2. That's called "poisoning the well." Assuming you can show that greek heresy was rampant in the orthodoxy you'd still have to tie this particular point to just such an idea. If everything else Augustine wrote was heresy, this point would still have to be judged on its own merits.

Click to expand...

I was not accusing Augustine of heresy-- I was showing the church was steeped in heresy by this stage.

And yet this is precisely what He seems to have done. If God, in His infinite wisdom, has chosen to reveal Himself through myth, how shall we argue? We know for certain that myths are foolishness. Anybody who uses a myth must be a buffoon. Everyone knows you can't communicate truth through a myth. If there is one thing we mustn't question, it is that myth is necessarily false.

Click to expand...

Well that is but a fairly new thought and bible beleivers do not agree. You have yet to establish that Genesis one should be viewed as a historically inaccurate myth. At least we know every time Jesus used the parabolic method to teach principles. I can even show many OT parabolic teaching methods. But he linguistics of genesis one preclude a parabolic communication.

Frankly, I don't care whether you think we evolved (that's not entirely true, but it is strictly secondary to coming to a greater understanding of what is written in Scripture). Even if the Earth is 6000 years old, that's not the point of Genesis. Even if reason and experience backed up every single point in the Creation story it wouldn't change our need to interpret Genesis, primarily, as a figure. Points in the story are lost when we try to interpret it as an historical, factual account. As has been said before, treating it literally has never been popular (until recently). Treating it as a factual history was impossible until the modern era.

Click to expand...

Treasting it as factual is something that has been done for 6 millenia!

You know I can draw hundreds of application form the firstr 11 chapters of Genesis-- but there still remains one interpretation--God said what He meant and meant what He said!! Treating it literally is osmething Israel has doenm for millenia as well as looking behind the literal to learn other applications.

When we interpret it literally we lose nothing but we gain the majestry and glory of God!!

I challenge you to find me one period before the late 1800's on when a nonliteral view of Genesis was the predominant thinking of either the Jews or the church!

People have viewed it nonliterally and mythically since the beginning-but until recently it was the minority view of beleivers-not teh majority view!

I challenge you to find me one period before the late 1800's on when a nonliteral view of Genesis was the predominant thinking of either the Jews or the church!

the late medieval age, just before the Reformation, the commonly accepted hermeneutic was called the 4-fold way.

four senses: literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical; aim: promote spiritual life
from: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Lent_03_Handout.htm

It was to this allegorical method that Luther rebelled with his principle of preference for the simple and literal. A principle he got from Augustine via Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274)

i. General: four-fold sense, allegory; three spiritual senses need to be rooted in literal

quotes from:
The History of the Interpretation of the Apostle Paul By Dr. Peter M. Head
a worthwhile outline/notes from 8 lectures delivered on the history of the hermeneutics to understand Paul.

nolidad said:

In the first century no--in the fourth and fifth until the printing press--yes.

Click to expand...

This is not true. Before the printing press, it was time-consuming to copy manuscripts into a publicly accessible translation of the Bible; illuminated manuscripts were often decorated, like this one. They were never hidden from public sight. They were read aloud by those that could read, and they were fastened to the wall for those who could read for themselves - if you had hand-copied a manuscript, you would do the same thing (without an ulterior motive) to prevent people from stealing the copy you had.

Look, nolidad, the TE's and myself have presented numerous Church fathers over many threads who thought that Genesis ought to be treated figuratively. If the fathers don't represent the laity, then we have no way of knowing what the laity thought. They were illiterate and didn't leave us any writings to tell us. The only thing we can say for sure is that the fathers were treating it figuratively, and there was some group of laity who were treating it literally in Augustine's time.

At any rate, we have the expounders of the orthodoxy treating Genesis as a figure. If you don't like it, that's fine. I'm not going to belabor it except to say that I think you should read some of these writings. You have said that the figurative interpretation is a minority view. If that's so (and I only see reasons to think otherwise) then it was certainly a strange minority to be at once formulating essential orthodox doctrines like hypostasis, and turning around and arguing that Moses treated origins in figure, or saying "No Christian will dare say that the [Genesis] narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense."

But here you say that, "In the first century no--in the fourth and fifth until the printing press--yes," and, "Well that is but a fairly new thought and bible beleivers [sic] do not agree," without providing a shred of reason or offering up a primary source for me to read. Instead there is only, "I challenge you to find me one period before the late 1800's on when [sic] a nonliteral view of Genesis was the predominant thinking of either the Jews or the church!"

Seriously, if you're not even going to try, why are you arguing at all? Why not leave it to another YEC who will be scholarly about it?

nolidad said:

Treasting it as factual is something that has been done for 6 millenia!

Click to expand...

And Joshua's description of the Sun revolving about the Earth was considered factual for nearly as long.

Jig said:

The overwhelming majority of those professors teaching such science believe that the naturalistic process of evolution explains life totally. They see no need for a higher being such as God. They believe this because one can explain away God with such theories. These same schools that teach evolution, do not teach the existence of God in those courses. In fact, if you go and ask the professors that teach these courses it would be rare to find one that actually does believe in a god.

These universties are teaching atheism through evolution and your approving...how very sad.

Click to expand...

I totally agree,
In high school I answered test questions based on what I believed to be true and took a lower grade because it didn't follow the evolution viewpoint.
-M.C.

The overwhelming majority of those professors teaching such science believe that the naturalistic process of evolution explains life totally.

Is this science or philosophy?
If you make a claim to sufficiency, that is the universe is NOTHING BUT matter in motion, you have exceeded science's grasp and are at the level of metaphysics. To conflate TofE with this metaphysical claim is to confuse the levels of the discussion and to fall prey to a category error. TE's don't make a claim of sufficiency for science, only that within it's domain science is the best way to examine the world that we have found.

If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

Click to expand...

Evolution is theory, just different degrees of it....it's bursts of 'ideas' that have gained momentum and popularity, and consequently taken root as 'facts' and moved into the realm of accepted 'beliefs'....which almost kinda' sounds like a sort of 'religion', doesn't it?