It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly.

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
As for "blind faith" observe how some of their own - lament the situation they are stuck with.

Promote "belief in" evolutionism - blind faith "belief" and use it to destroy acceptance of the Bible as being God's reliable accurate "account" for origins.


Can you worship gravity or any other non-junk-science theory ? - I don't think so.

By contrast when it comes to the junk-science we call blind-faith evolutionism we have what no "real science" has --

============================

==============================

[FONT=&quot]Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at [/FONT]the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 [FONT=&quot] - said:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"'...holding creationist ideas could [/FONT][FONT=&quot]plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact[/FONT][FONT=&quot],'" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Patterson countered, "That seems to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of a good many of you in here... [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"...,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge[/FONT][FONT=&quot] , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..." [/FONT] __________________

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...

Augustine "imagined" that a 7 day week was Wayyyy tooooo long for creation and so it must have been more like 'one day' with the 7 days of Creation week symbolic for the phases of one literal day.

I fail to see how evolutionists think this helps their case.

in Christ,

Bob

So... Augustine didn't take Genesis figuratively?
 
Upvote 0
G

godenver1

Guest
It is not so confusing as you have imagined - and according to Barr the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities "notice", as do Bible believing Christians who accept the Word of God as trustworthy.

Augustine "imagined" that a 7 day week was Wayyyy tooooo long for creation and so it must have been more like 'one day' with the 7 days of Creation week symbolic for the phases of one literal day.

I fail to see how evolutionists think this helps their case.

in Christ,

Bob

The point is that notable revered church father(s) do not interpret Genesis literally as it is written. If interpreting Genesis as symbolic is "wrenching" the text, then said church father(s) apparently did so but I find it absurd to believe that is the case. Please correct me if any of this information is wrong, but that is how I see it.

The T.E. is bliindly devoted to easter-bunnyism it matters not that Creationists believe the Bible - the Word of the Designer who in fact said He created all life on earth in a 7 day timeline about 6000 years ago - the evolutionists religion is entirely independent of facts of that sort.

So I don't follow your attempt to connect them.

The paucity of observable evidence for the salient point of evolutionism is staggering.

NO rocks, dust, gas, liquids self-combine to become bacteria - period!

NO bacteria become Amoebas - or any other sort of eukaryote. Period!

NO Amoebas turn into horses.

There is NO climbing going on of that sort.

So they "imagine it".

And they spin hoax after decades long hoax to prop up their story.

Their dilemma is hard to ignore - no matter the names or faults they wish to call out against Bible believing Christians.

in Christ,

Bob


I could see why some would be offended at the constant hinting that Christians who believe in evolution don't see the bible as trustworthy or true, or that they dismiss the resurrection or virgin birth, or that they aren't good, righteous, bible believing YECs.

The above post doesn't address the issue of the reliable evidence for YECreationism. This post seemingly tried to dispel the credibility of the theory of evolution, but (although I'm no expert) it appears to lack an accurate understanding of what it is. I don't see anyone claiming a single celled amoeba can "turn" into a horse. Give me 5 minutes and I'll try and find an 8 minute YT video covering the basics. :)

edit: here is a video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8

Just letting you know I am giving up CF for lent, so I won't be able to respond for a while.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Audacious
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I haven't read Spong, so I can't speak to that. Therefore, I will be a little more general in my phrasing:

Nobody can use the arguments I made about Genesis being figurative to talk about the gospels. These arguments are tailored to Genesis because they are based on my readings of and about Genesis. Perhaps they can be amended to the gospels, however. I'd be open to hearing them.

Calminian, can you take the position of the devil's advocate and argue that the gospels were not intended literally? You can use Spong's arguments as a basis, if you have them available. Or pick an argument of mine about Genesis, and rephrase it in terms of a gospel.

Well I believe both Genesis and the Gospels are narrative. If Genesis is not narrative, then the gospels are not narrative. All of the aspects of a narrative you find in Genesis are in the Gospels.

The real burden is on you. Why do you believe narratives in Genesis are different than narratives in the Gospels? If you can show a difference, you can build your case.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Okay, so, no devil's advocate. I'm going to assume that the same arguments cannot be made about the gospels as can be made about Genesis. Nevertheless, to your argument:

Well I believe both Genesis and the Gospels are narrative. If Genesis is not narrative, then the gospels are not narrative. All of the aspects of a narrative you find in Genesis are in the Gospels.

The real burden is on you. Why do you believe narratives in Genesis are different than narratives in the Gospels? If you can show a difference, you can build your case.

I dispute where the burden inherently is, but I'll take it because I used to think Genesis should be interpreted literally and was persuaded otherwise.

There is a particular fact that is surprising if Genesis and the gospels are the same kind of narrative, that is not surprising if they are different: many of the ECFs treated the creation and/or garden account purely for its figurative value. Not one of them did so for the gospels.

There is a nuance in the above that requires clarification: Since many ECFs took Genesis literally, it may be that literal is the way Genesis should be taken (won't go into this, yet). But since many of them took it figuratively, it should be unambiguous that there is something apparently different in the kind of narrative of Genesis versus the gospels.

This is a pretty good chunk, and there's no point in continuing until it is agreed upon. Thoughts? Questions? Challenges?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Wren
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Well I believe both Genesis and the Gospels are narrative. If Genesis is not narrative, then the gospels are not narrative. All of the aspects of a narrative you find in Genesis are in the Gospels.

The real burden is on you. Why do you believe narratives in Genesis are different than narratives in the Gospels? If you can show a difference, you can build your case.

As James Barr points out - it is not a matter of "belief" when it comes to the "kind of literature that it is" --- all can see.

But some "need to deny what they see" because their faith in evolutionism as Christians leaves them in a compromised position when it comes to having to admit to "the kind of literature that we all see" when we open the text and read it.

it is a circular argument to see the T.E. conflict-of-interest resulting in that denial of the obvious when it comes to 'the kind of literature that it is" -- and then conclude 'well then the literature must have suddenly changed when the T.E. looked at it".

Clearly that did not happen.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
....There is a particular fact that is surprising if Genesis and the gospels are the same kind of narrative, that is not surprising if they are different: many of the ECFs treated the creation and/or garden account purely for its figurative value. Not one of them did so for the gospels.

So, you yourself don't know of any differences you can point to, but have been persuaded by others who see difference. That seems a very tenuous argument, but let's take a closer look.

First, your view of the ECF's is completely false. If this is the basis for your change of mind, you've based it on false information. Most of the ECF's held to literal creation days and virtually all held to a historical narrative approach to Genesis (including Augustine). What might be confusing is their understanding of the term allegory.

They didn't use the term as we do today. They were actually using it in the sense of typology. This is the idea that something is literal presently but also has a separate futuristic meaning. Melchizedek, for instance, is often thought to be a type of Christ. Thus, the early fathers believed the days of Genesis were literal 24 hour evening morning days, but also were typological expressions of future thousand years periods. This is why most of them believed the world was only going to last for 6,000 years, giving evidence of both their young earth views, and belief in literal days.

Now early notions of futuristic typologies seemed to have dissipated among theologians, but the fathers were indeed literalists when it came to the book of Genesis. I recommend Terry Mortenson's book, Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. They completely obliterate old earth ECF arguments. Also see, Lewis, J.P., The days of Creation: an historical survey of interpretation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saricharity
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The above post doesn't address the issue of the reliable evidence for YECreationism. This post seemingly tried to dispel the credibility of the theory of evolution, but (although I'm no expert) it appears to lack an accurate understanding of what it is. I don't see anyone claiming a single celled amoeba can "turn" into a horse. Give me 5 minutes and I'll try and find an 8 minute YT video covering the basics. :)

.

The easter-bunny like fictions of evolutionism are not "wrong because Bible Believing Christians can make life in their own creationist labs better than evolutionists can" or any such thing.

The easter-bunny like junk-science fictions of evolutionism - are simply wrong.

As one of their own says "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" when it comes to the stories of "how one thing came from another" to march up the taxonomic ladder of life.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Well I believe both Genesis and the Gospels are narrative. If Genesis is not narrative, then the gospels are not narrative. All of the aspects of a narrative you find in Genesis are in the Gospels.

The real burden is on you. Why do you believe narratives in Genesis are different than narratives in the Gospels? If you can show a difference, you can build your case.


Okay, so, no devil's advocate. I'm going to assume that the same arguments cannot be made about the gospels as can be made about Genesis.

So then you are 'assuming the salient point of the T.E. argument instead of proving it' -- and also "admitting it"???




Nevertheless, to your argument:

I dispute where the burden inherently is, but I'll take it because I used to think Genesis should be interpreted literally and was persuaded otherwise.

There is a particular fact that is surprising if Genesis and the gospels are the same kind of narrative, that is not surprising if they are different: many of the ECFs treated the creation and/or garden account purely for its figurative value. Not one of them did so for the gospels.

Your entire case is with the ECF's -- and rather it is about 'some ECF's

ECF is not "written in the text" of either Genesis 1-2 or the Gospels.

There was more than enough heresy going around among "some" of the ECFs to fill a truck.

So then... back to the text itself. -- the Last place the T.E. argument comfortable going.

Recall that Augustine found nothing in the language of the text telling him it was not a historic account - rather what he found was his own darkness in arguing that 7 day was TOO LONG a time for God to use in making the earth - so he decided to "help God" by shortening the time to 1 day.

It is that sort of "odd logic" that I think - fits the T.E. system quite well even while shooting their objective in the foot.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The T.E. is bliindly devoted to easter-bunnyism it matters not that Creationists believe the Bible - the Word of the Designer who in fact said He created all life on earth in a 7 day timeline about 6000 years ago - the evolutionists religion is entirely independent of facts of that sort.

So I don't follow your attempt to connect them.

The paucity of observable evidence for the salient point of evolutionism is staggering.

NO rocks, dust, gas, liquids self-combine to become bacteria - period!

NO bacteria become Amoebas - or any other sort of eukaryote. Period!

NO Amoebas turn into horses.

There is NO climbing going on of that sort.

So they "imagine it".

And they spin hoax after decades long hoax to prop up their story.

Their dilemma is hard to ignore - no matter the names or faults they wish to call out against Bible believing Christians.
I could see why some would be offended at the constant hinting that Christians who believe in evolution don't see the bible as trustworthy or true, or that they dismiss the resurrection or virgin birth, or that they aren't good, righteous, bible believing YECs.

Misses the point entirely. The point remains that the do a hatchet job on the historic accounts of the Bible is to wipe out not only the Genesis account (which T.E.'s love to do) but also wipes out a bit more than that - which is simply short-sighted of the T.E. argument.

sad... but true.

The above post doesn't address the issue of the reliable evidence for YECreationism.

The science fact for Creationism is great starting with bold confessions by evolutionists like Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind that their own "observations in nature" drove them to conclude for design and a designer because chance could not account for the resulting cosmological constant at 10^120 in "fine tuning" -- no possibility of "chance" doing that.

Be that as it may - the junk-science nature of evolutionism is flawed -- all by itself. It does not need creationism or resurrection-ism, or virgin-birth-ism to make it junk science.

This post seemingly tried to dispel the credibility of the theory of evolution, but (although I'm no expert) it appears to lack an accurate understanding of what it is. I don't see anyone claiming a single celled amoeba can "turn" into a horse.
Then you are not following the story telling they do. ALL horses (even in your video) come from single celled eukaryotes.

And all single celled eukaryotes come from single celled prokaryotes.

and NO prokaryotes turn into eukaryotes when it comes to "observations in nature" - it is pure fiction -- "yet they need it".

Your video claims that ALL mutations within a gene pool are proof of blind faith evolutionism - because evolutionism is "change" but change alone will get you lots of bacteria becoming - more-bacteria ... however it will never get you "bacteria that become amoebas" --

The salient point mechanism that would accomplish that trick - has never been observed.

Thus as one of their own evolutionists admitted 'the stories" based on the fossil record "about one thing coming from another are easy enough to tell - but they are NOT science"
Collin Patterson.


Yet those "stories" are precisely what they have been using to dupe the public.

Did you ever hear the 'story' about the peppered moth??? This was a much loved junk-science fraud perpetuated from around 1955 to about 2000 or 2002 depending on which debunker you reference.

The better junk-science frauds in the 'religion' of evolutionism run 30 to 50 years before fully debunked as the fraud that they were.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ah, shoot! I posted my response to this in a different thread. We seem to be having the same discussion in both places.

So, you yourself don't know of any differences you can point to, but have been persuaded by others who see difference. That seems a very tenuous argument, but let's take a closer look.

That is different from what I said. I certainly do see plenty of differences. I didn't, at one time, but I do now. I was brought to the point of investigation because, after being taught that all of the orthodox ECFs held the interpretation of Genesis that I had, I found out that this was not so. Some took it figuratively, others took it literally -- but with a _different_ (and irreconcilable) literal interpretation.

First, your view of the ECF's is completely false. If this is the basis for your change of mind, you've based it on false information. Most of the ECF's held to literal creation days and virtually all held to a historical narrative approach to Genesis (including Augustine). What might be confusing is their understanding of the term allegory.

They didn't use the term as we do today. They were actually using it in the sense of typology. This is the idea that something is literal presently but also has a separate futuristic meaning. Melchizedek, for instance, is often thought to be a type of Christ. Thus, the early fathers believed the days of Genesis were literal 24 hour evening morning days, but also were typological expressions of future thousand years periods. This is why most of them believed the world was only going to last for 6,000 years, giving evidence of both their young earth views, and belief in literal days.

Now early notions of futuristic typologies seemed to have dissipated among theologians, but the fathers were indeed literalists when it came to the book of Genesis. I recommend Terry Mortenson's book, Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. They completely obliterate old earth ECF arguments. Also see, Lewis, J.P., The days of Creation: an historical survey of interpretation.

This is what I responded to in the other thread. I'll repost here:

Augustine was not a literalist. His reasoning was that everything needed to be evaluated on its own terms, like I'm advocating. He even said: "In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened." (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) This is an argument (and you can read the book to see this idea worked out more fully) that narratives ought to be treated figuratively by default, but that they may also have a literal meaning. He wrote this work, in fact, to rebuff the literalists of his day who were making evangelism hard because their literal interpretation was conflicting with known physical realities -- they were subjecting the Scriptures to ridicule by their literalism.

---

I'm happy to focus on Augustine, but this was also true of his teacher, Ambrose, as well as basically anybody who came out the Alexandrian tradition. There are certainly people who took the account literally, but nobody holds their interpretations any more.

Additionally, when citing ECFs, I'd like to stick to primary sources for the reason I mentioned at the top of this post, if possible.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So then you are 'assuming the salient point of the T.E. argument instead of proving it' -- and also "admitting it"???

I'm happy to respond to the assertion that the same arguments can be made about the gospels as can be made about Genesis. Haha! But only if someone will debate me on the point. I can't see a way to defend it. Maybe you're more clever than I am and can do it?

But if the argument is dropped as soon as it is made, I can't but assume I'm right.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by Calminian
Well I believe both Genesis and the Gospels are narrative. If Genesis is not narrative, then the gospels are not narrative. All of the aspects of a narrative you find in Genesis are in the Gospels.

The real burden is on you. Why do you believe narratives in Genesis are different than narratives in the Gospels? If you can show a difference, you can build your case.




Originally Posted by Willtor
Okay, so, no devil's advocate. I'm going to assume that the same arguments cannot be made about the gospels as can be made about Genesis.​

So then you are 'assuming the salient point of the T.E. argument instead of proving it' -- and also "admitting it"???

Calminian asked for someone to defend what appears to be the nonsensical T.E. position when it comes to Biblical historic accounts.

I point out that the response to Calminian was to "assume" the nonsense was true rather than to prove it.

And the defense for "assuming" whatever wild idea comes into the mind??

I'm happy to respond to the assertion that the same arguments can be made about the gospels as can be made about Genesis. Haha! But only if someone will debate me on the point.

I guess we are still waiting for the response to the point raised.

I can't see a way to defend it. Maybe you're more clever than I am and can do it?

But if the argument is dropped as soon as it is made, I can't but assume I'm right.

The "actual posts" in real life have been along the lines of pressing Calminian's point home -- and you seem to be sidestepping each time that is done.

So then "assume" all is well??

really???

That is how it goes?

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Ah, shoot! I posted my response to this in a different thread. We seem to be having the same discussion in both places.



That is different from what I said. I certainly do see plenty of differences. I didn't, at one time, but I do now. I was brought to the point of investigation because, after being taught that all of the orthodox ECFs held the interpretation of Genesis that I had, I found out that this was not so. Some took it figuratively, others took it literally -- but with a _different_ (and irreconcilable) literal interpretation.



This is what I responded to in the other thread. I'll repost here:

Augustine was not a literalist. His reasoning was that everything needed to be evaluated on its own terms, like I'm advocating. He even said: "In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened." (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) This is an argument (and you can read the book to see this idea worked out more fully) that narratives ought to be treated figuratively by default, but that they may also have a literal meaning. He wrote this work, in fact, to rebuff the literalists of his day who were making evangelism hard because their literal interpretation was conflicting with known physical realities -- they were subjecting the Scriptures to ridicule by their literalism.

--- .

Augustine argued that 7 literal days was TOO LONG because the "physical reality" is that God cannot make plant life - after creating light on day 1 if he waits until the "day AFTER" creating plants to create the Sun. Augustine "imagined" that this would be 'too long' a time even for God so it all must have happened in one literal day.

Odd how the T.E. 4 billion year argument is claiming that Augustine's "1 literal day week" - is "helping them".

If Augustine is now to be the T.E. Bible - then the T.E. argument is even more "sunk" than it was before when we thought they were looking at the actual Bible.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Calminian asked for someone to defend what appears to be the nonsensical T.E. position when it comes to Biblical historic accounts.

I point out that the response to Calminian was to "assume" the nonsense was true rather than to prove it.

And the defense for "assuming" whatever wild idea comes into the mind??

I guess we are still waiting for the response to the point raised.

I'm not going to wait. It seems Calminian wants to discuss whether Genesis is a different kind of narrative from the gospels, instead. So I'm going to go with that. If you want to take up the question of whether the same points that I made about Genesis can be made about the gospels, that's cool. I'm willing to do both. But one thing at a time, per person, please.

The "actual posts" in real life have been along the lines of pressing Calminian's point home -- and you seem to be sidestepping each time that is done.

So then "assume" all is well??

really???

That is how it goes?

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

I don't understand what you're saying. Please slow down and organize your thoughts. I don't know what you're assuming or how anything goes. What is the point you're trying to make?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Augustine argued that 7 literal days was TOO LONG because the "physical reality" is that God cannot make plant life - after creating light on day 1 if he waits until the "day AFTER" creating plants to create the Sun. Augustine "imagined" that this would be 'too long' a time even for God so it all must have happened in one literal day.

Odd how the T.E. 4 billion year argument is claiming that Augustine's "1 literal day week" - is "helping them".

If Augustine is now to be the T.E. Bible - then the T.E. argument is even more "sunk" than it was before when we thought they were looking at the actual Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

I'm not arguing the T.E. position with Calminian. I'm not clear how this is relevant?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by BobRyan

Originally Posted by Calminian
Well I believe both Genesis and the Gospels are narrative. If Genesis is not narrative, then the gospels are not narrative. All of the aspects of a narrative you find in Genesis are in the Gospels.

The real burden is on you. Why do you believe narratives in Genesis are different than narratives in the Gospels? If you can show a difference, you can build your case.

Originally Posted by Willtor
Okay, so, no devil's advocate. I'm going to assume that the same arguments cannot be made about the gospels as can be made about Genesis.​

So then you are 'assuming the salient point of the T.E. argument instead of proving it' -- and also "admitting it"???

Calminian asked for someone to defend what appears to be the nonsensical T.E. position when it comes to Biblical historic accounts.

I point out that the response to Calminian was to "assume" the nonsense was true rather than to prove it.

And the defense for "assuming" whatever wild idea comes into the mind??

Originally Posted by Willtor
I'm happy to respond to the assertion that the same arguments can be made about the gospels as can be made about Genesis. Haha! But only if someone will debate me on the point.


I guess we are still waiting for the response to the point raised.

I can't see a way to defend it. Maybe you're more clever than I am and can do it?

But if the argument is dropped as soon as it is made, I can't but assume I'm right.

The "actual posts" in real life have been along the lines of pressing Calminian's point home -- and you seem to be sidestepping each time that is done.

So then "assume" all is well??

really???

That is how it goes?

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers. __________________



I'm not going to wait. It seems Calminian wants to discuss whether Genesis is a different kind of narrative from the gospels

So then you noticed that too.

, instead. So I'm going to go with that. If you want to take up the question of whether the same points that I made about Genesis can be made about the gospels, that's cool. I'm willing to do both.

Seems basic to the claim that both are the same sort of historic narrative.

An otherwise obvious point that even the scholars in James Barr's circle seem to be agreed upon.


I don't understand what you're saying. Please slow down and organize your thoughts. I don't know what you're assuming or how anything goes. What is the point you're trying to make?

The point is that the efforts to carve Genesis out of the Bible list of historic accounts is not proceeding at any sort of rate so far.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So then you noticed that too.

Yes. But whatever he wants is cool. As I said, I'm willing to discuss either topic.

Seems basic to the claim that both are the same sort of historic narrative.

An otherwise obvious point that even the scholars in James Barr's circle seem to be agreed upon.

I'd be happy to discuss it, if that's what you want. Just jump right in.

The point is that the efforts to carve Genesis out of the Bible list of historic accounts is not proceeding at any sort of rate so far.

in Christ,

Bob

I know! As I say, just jump right in! Do it. Take any of my arguments and make them about a gospel, as a devil's advocate, and I'll try to knock them down. Go for it!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

godenver1

Guest
The easter-bunny like fictions of evolutionism are not "wrong because Bible Believing Christians can make life in their own creationist labs better than evolutionists can" or any such thing.

The easter-bunny like junk-science fictions of evolutionism - are simply wrong.

As one of their own says "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" when it comes to the stories of "how one thing came from another" to march up the taxonomic ladder of life.

in Christ,

Bob

Sorry about the delay. :)

This post doesn't address any evidence at all, and claims that evolutionism is "easter-bunny like junk-science fictions (sic)" without any actual evidence to prove so. It is hard for me to actually respond when there's no evidence or sources up for debate. I haven't read the OP in a while, but I believe this thread is about the creationist argument, and not about evolution. I haven't seen a decent defence of the YEC argument other than a certain interpretation of the bible which has been displayed is up for debate, and quite possibly not the correct interpretation.
 
Upvote 0