New Testament Heresy on Creation

[shernren]

I think it's brilliant. It shows where the narrow view of creationism and the rejection of ANE influence must inevitably lead you.

But AiH is a YEC!

Isn't he??

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi wrote:



Hey, cool observation.


Papias

Sorry, I did not observe that. I was told that by evolutionists. I am not very serious about it.

Think: why so much Si in the inner planets but not in the outer planets of the solar system? It is hard to explain. (don't try to answer it, because if you do, I will point out that you are wrong)

 

[callmeMurph]

I can't tell if people are joking or being serious in here...

 

[shernren]

I can't tell if people are joking or being serious in here...

Origin Theology Koans

God said "Let there be light!"
And there was light.
God said "Excellent! Two days after tomorrow, I shall create heavenly objects so that there are evenings and mornings!"
And there was evening, and morning, the first day.

=========

mark kennedy cited two commentaries, a concordance, and a bible dictionary.
he said evolutionists weren't biblical.

=========

Evolutionists need to take the Bible more literally, or they will
stumble their brothers and sisters.

=========

Young Earth Creationism is apparently
an ancient view

=========

Funnily enough, writing koans
is serious business.

 

[philadiddle]

But AiH is a YEC!

Isn't he??

Maybe he is changing his mind? I used to be a YEC too. Guess we'll have to wait for him to say.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

Sorry, I did not observe that. I was told that by evolutionists. I am not very serious about it.

Darn. I was being nice for the sake of being nice. I don't find it very serious either, but at least it isn't wrong.

Think: why so much Si in the inner planets but not in the outer planets of the solar system? It is hard to explain. (don't try to answer it, because if you do, I will point out that you are wrong)

OK, I'll give that a go for the fun of it.

My guess is that it is due to escape velocities and the square root dependence between molecular weight and gas velocity.

Go ahead.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Jupiter Has Large, Rocky Core Surrounded By Layer Of Ice
A comparison of this model with the planet's known mass, radius, surface temperature, gravity and equatorial bulge implies that Jupiter's core is an Earth-like rock 14 to 18 times the mass of Earth, or about one-twentieth of Jupiter's total mass, Militzer said. Previous models predicted a much smaller core of only 7 Earth masses, or no core at all.
The simulation suggests that the core is made of layers of metals, rocks and ices of methane, ammonia and water, while above it is an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium. At the center of the rocky core is probably a metallic ball of iron and nickel, just like Earth's core.
​

Sounds like there is plenty of Si out there too, It is more a case that the gas giants are better at holding on to H and He. I'll go along with Papias' molecular weight and gas velocity. Solar wind would also be a lot less intense out where the gas giants are, though I don't know if it would be slower or simply thinner. At the same time some of the first planets discovered outside the solar system were gas giants in close orbit of their star, so I think the main factor would be molecular weight and gas velocity.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

Are you actually questioning God and His Word?
It isn't for you to decide what makes in into the canon of scripture or not. That is partly of how cults start.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry, I did not observe that. I was told that by evolutionists. I am not very serious about it.

Think: why so much Si in the inner planets but not in the outer planets of the solar system? It is hard to explain. (don't try to answer it, because if you do, I will point out that you are wrong)

Hey Juve, we did what you asked us not to, you promised to point out we were wrong. Don't disappoint us

 

[Papias]

Pastor Kelvin wrote:

It isn't for you to decide what makes in into the canon of scripture or not. That is part of how cults start.

Like Martin Luther, who revised the OT canon and questioned the NT canon?

Like Pope John Paul II, who deleted two books from the OT in 1979?

Like Jerome, and Augustine, who had different canons?

Like Irenaeaus, who didn't include Hebrews, Philemon, and others?

Cult starters!! Darn them all to Heck!!

Papias

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Pastor Kelvin wrote:


Like Martin Luther, who revised the OT canon and questioned the NT canon?

Like Pope John Paul II, who deleted two books from the OT in 1979?

Like Jerome, and Augustine, who had different canons?

Like Irenaeaus, who didn't include Hebrews, Philemon, and others?

Cult starters!! Darn them all to Heck!!

Papias

One of our earliest complete biblical codices, Codex Sinaiticus, contained the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas; another, the Codex Vaticanus may have included the Epistle of Clement.

That said, the notion of rejecting 2 Peter on the basis of it not lining up with one's particular view of YEC is so patently absurd that I'm unconvinced that anything serious has actually been said and that a lot of legs are being pulled. It would require something just a wee bit more substantial to challenge the canonicity of 2 Peter (though, many in antiquity did).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dark_Lite]

Like Pope John Paul II, who deleted two books from the OT in 1979?

Um, what?

 

[Papias]

CryptoLutheran wrote:

That said, the notion of rejecting 2 Peter on the basis of it not lining up with one's particular view of YEC is so patently absurd that I'm unconvinced that anything serious has actually been said and that a lot of legs are being pulled. It would require something just a wee bit more substantial to challenge the canonicity of 2 Peter (though, many in antiquity did).

Yes, I agree. As think you recognized, I was just pointing out that there have always been, and are today, different canons, and that pastorkevin's statement seemed to be ignorant of history. There has never been a single Bible with the same Canon - not before Athanasius, not in the middle ages, not after the reformation, not today. Thank you also for pointing out additional examples for this.

Darklite wrote:

Um, what?

Yes, a little explanation is in order. I simplified the situation, and now I'll explain in more detail.

The "Vulgate" is was actually not a single Bible, but different versions were around from as far back as we can tell (see Cryptolutheran's comment, for example). However, many or most of these contained the books of Manasses plus 3 and 4 Esdras as part of the OT. The Vulgate was the Bible of the Catholic church from the 5th century up to sometime around 1600.

OK, moving up to the protestant reformation, the canon of the Bible was under attack by the protestants (as the RCC viewed it), and as such the RCC convened the council of Trent in the mid 1500s to rebuff these attacks by reaffirming that the Vulgate was the correct and canonical Bible. Remember, the Vulgate contained the books of Manasses plus 3 and 4 Esdras as part of the OT. As part of this, around 1600 Pope Clementine issued a new, official version, which moved the books of Manasses plus 3 and 4 Esdras to the end of the OT , though they were still part of the Bible. The Clementine Vulgate was the official Bible of the Catholic church for centuries.

Now, move up to 1979. Pope JPII issues the Nova Vulgate (the "New Vulgate"), to replace the Clementine Vulgate as the official Bible. The Nova Vulgate removed the books of Manasses plus 3 and 4 Esdras entirely.

It's interesting how this is similar to Luther and some new testament books. Luther moved James, Revelation, and I think another book to an appendix in the Bible he published, but unlike the books of Manasses plus 3 and 4 Esdras, later people in his order did not finish the process of removing them, instead putting them back where they were.

I didn't think that whole story would fit there, hence the one liner. Sorry if it was oversimplified.

Papias

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Actually Luther moved all the Deuterocanonical books to an appendix; in the case of James, Hebrews, Jude and the Revelation he originally wanted to remove them, but instead was convinced to retain them, but he just moved them all to the very end of the New Testament instead. The Luther Bible retains this ordering of the New Testament to this very day.

EDIT: Here's a link for anyone interested.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Siyha]

Pastor Kelvin wrote:


Like Martin Luther, who revised the OT canon and questioned the NT canon?

Like Pope John Paul II, who deleted two books from the OT in 1979?

Like Jerome, and Augustine, who had different canons?

Like Irenaeaus, who didn't include Hebrews, Philemon, and others?

Cult starters!! Darn them all to Heck!!

Papias

Wait, are we putting AnswersinHovind on par with these guys?

...

I'm in.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

Whoa, slow down there.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

The creation of earth actually hinges around the waters themselves and their gathering together, dry land is only formed after ("appears"), the waters where there before hand - already in existence. No, there isn't any contradiction.

8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
9 When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
10 When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
11 When I said,

‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’

(Job 38:8 NKJ)