You wrote:
"The Bible isn't 100% perfect
The Bible isn't 100% without error."
Do you trust in an erroneous Book or not? Have you ever said you trust in the Bible? Now's your opportunity to say so.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You wrote:Post 147 October 11, app 3:10 pm (my time)
False Claim made, Post 148 Asked for proof, ignored.
Post 218 October 16, app 6:26pm (my time)
They say they will conditionally appologize (yet still don't)
so after asking for simple proof or an appology for 5 days they still can't give one without conditions
You wrote:
"The Bible isn't 100% perfect
The Bible isn't 100% without error."
Do you trust in an erroneous Book or not? Have you ever said you trust in the Bible? Now's your opportunity to say so.
You say you don't trust the Bible, but you use many Biblical terms. How about some consistency?
How can I apologize for what you are refusing to explain? Do you or do you not trust in the Bible? Another very simple question.Not tell you apologize for the slander or show me where I stated what you said I stated
How can I apologize for what you are refusing to explain? Do you or do you not trust in the Bible? Another very simple question.
You say you don't trust the Bible, but you use many Biblical terms. How about some consistency?
Have you stated clearly that you trust the Bible? Until you can tell us then you have proven nothing against me. You can make all the charges you like but until you stop refusing to state your beliefs plainly they are simply charges, not facts.You stated And I quote again (and again & again & again)
Not tell you apologize for the slander or show me where I stated what you said I stated
Now remember you did saw a few post that you Would Apologize though it's a conditional apology (you should read that link I posted)
Have you stated clearly that you trust the Bible? Until you can tell us then you have proven nothing against me. You can make all the charges you like but until you stop refusing to state your beliefs plainly they are simply charges, not facts.
You say you don't trust the Bible, but you use many Biblical terms. How about some consistency?
You do realize that you are insisting that you trust in an erroneous Book? That is really all you are proving here.You posted 5 days ago what you claim I believe.
Everyone can see that and see your avoidance to back it up.
Not tell you apologize for the slander or show me where I stated what you said I stated
I would be wary of mandatory laws. But I'm also critical of the way the "teach the controversy" stuff is trying to be snuck into books as well as the attempts to backdoor intelligent design(ie creationism) into science classrooms.
If the dead are not raised then our faith is in vain.So you believe that the axe head floated on water, that God drowned everyone on Earth but 8, that God burned Sodom, that Jesus and Peter walked on water, that people were raised from the dead many times, literally?
Ok, you believe that all those who were raised from the dead literally happened. Good.If the dead are not raised then our faith is in vain.
So you believe it to be literal?You ask about God stopping time, yet I do not know of any passage in scripture that says that, Perhaps you are referring to:
Joshua 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. But this does not say God stopped time, it says the sun stopped and stood still, an only hurried to set after after the miracle. This is one of those passages that people interpreted geocentrically for most of church history, that it is the sun that moves around the earth and it was the sun that stopped at Joshua's command. Of course when I brought up the interpretation of the geocentric passages, you refused to discuss it.
I did answer your questions. You just didn't like my answer. The creation account is literal. No reason to doubt it whatsoever. Each day of the creation is listed from the first day to the sixth, "evening and morning", literal days.So here you are not answering other people's questions, but presuming you can demand answers to every last detail in you posts, kind of arrogant there Preecher. This is a discussion forum. You earn the right to ask questions by participating in the discussion, not by setting yourself up as the Spanish Inquisition
I'm saying this is a limitation in methodological naturalism. Looking at supernatural explanations require another philosophical approach to acquiring knowledge.
Okay, I went to your link. I saw nothing but observation this and observation that. This website did not help your claim that observation is not needed to use the scientific method.
But they are not talking about "today" in historical science, they are talking about the past: millions and billions of years ago. Beyond observational sciences scope.
Scientists assume things were similar (such as decay rates) 2 billion years ago. This also implies the world was in existence 2 billion years ago. The premise evolutionists use is just "begging the question".
I don't ignore the evidence - evidence is neutral. I don't even ignore the interpretation of the evidence you are trying to give me. I just choose to believe in another interpretation of the evidence.
Chasing the supernatural moment as far back as possible, huh? Wouldn't want it to mess up your assumptions. Either way, some supernatural moment in the past had to occur. God could not have done everything naturally. Purposed creation is not natural.
This question implies that I was wrong. I already told you that I do not believe I was wrong.
All this means is that tree rings can be counted.
Yes. Do you know that there is more then one valid venue to display scientific work?
So those creationists and design advocates who actually have professional degrees in their respected fields, don't understand their field? Or is it that they don't agree with the assumptions the status quo field has made?
It does not need to be in an Darwinain bias peer-reviewed journal.
You're focus on what's different and not on what's similar. Their religious background and motivations have little to do with their work within naturalistic science. All the same assumptions are made.
Could the Earth have formed within the last million years? No. Evolutionists must have an old Earth to work or their theories cannot make sense.
I'm still waiting for any reason why the OJ application of science below is somehow "not science"
1. Might OJ have killed her?
2. Observe blood stains, flight information, gloves, etc.
3. Hypothesize that OJ killed her,
4. Predict that if OJ killed her, OJ's DNA will be found in the blood.
5. Test the blood for OJ's DNA
6. Support the hypothesis if OJ's DNA is found, reject it if not.
Ok, you believe that all those who were raised from the dead literally happened. Good.
You don't seem to.So you believe it to be literal?
At least I addressed your points. Simply quoting Exodus 20:11 to everything you couldn't deal with is not that much of an answer.I did answer your questions. You just didn't like my answer.
And morning and evening are always literal?The creation account is literal. No reason to doubt it whatsoever. Each day of the creation is listed from the first day to the sixth, "evening and morning", literal days.
It fails because it is a gross oversimplification that ignores how much of what you call operational science is supported by only very indirect experiment and observation while what you classify as historical sciences is based on observation, experiment, testing and confirmation from multiple sources. Most of what science studies cannot be directly observed or test, and whether you classify it as historical or operational, they all are based on finding other methods of testing the hypotheses that cannot be observed directly.
Is the operational/historical distinction false? Where does it fail?
I'll list them again:
Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.
Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.
You did not ask about disproving creationism you asked experiment supporting evolution. Speciation is of course macroevolution. If you want to claim it is variation within a kind, you first have to come up with some evidence for the existence of discrete kinds. But the experimental evidence I showed you was not simply speciation. I showed the origin of completely new genes. How can that be variation within a kind when the genes did not exist before? There were unicellular organisms evolving in to multicellular, which is a massive change in the structure of the organism.Speciation does not disprove biblical creationism. "Kind" and "species" are not the same thing. There can be several species within a kind.
If that were true we would never have been able to decide between geocentrism and heliocentrism, alchemists would still be claiming the chemical evidence supports their four elements just as much as the 118. Astrologers would still be claiming to have the same evidence as astronomy. It is nonsense. The evidence fits evolution beautifully and confirms the theory from multiple directions. As we have already seen, Creations have to fiddle the variables for each set of figures to make it fit, while claims that 'God just did it that way' are so vague anything could be made fit.Evidence is neutral, it does not speak for itself. All evidence must be interpreted. Creationists and Evolutionist have the exact same evidence.
What are the implication of rhetoric? Only that you want to avoid discussing actual evidence as we can see the way you ignored my discussion of the evidence available when when heliocentrism was accepted, and the reliability of fossil evidence.You calling my use of operational/historical science an excuse sounds like an excuse to bypass the implications.<snipped out>Which will give the most reliable evidence, a 2 millennia old fossil cast of a Roman from Pompeii, a 72 million year old fossilised velociraptor, or a 400 million year old trilobite? If anything, Potassium Argon dating is more reliable with older fossils because you are not trying to measure trace amounts of Argon. </snip>
Like I said your use of operation and historical science sounds like an excuse. <snipped out>You show here that you much prefer trotting out slogans than looking at the actual evidence.You ignore how little evidence science had for heliocentrism and how completely untestable it was when the church abandoned their geocentric interpretations as a mistake and found better ways to understand scripture. We have much more evidence for evolution, and from multiple lines of evidence too. Was the church was right to abandon their geocentric interpretations when they have much less evidence than we have for evolution. </snip>
As long as you don't take it literally.Yes, that was what I was saying. Yet, it is not wrong to describe the sun as rising or moving.
That if you take the plain meaning literally it is geocentric?And? How does this affect my position? Your wording supports what I've been saying all along.It is not that the bible describe sunrise, but that it says God causes the sun to rise. It say God stopped the sun moving for Joshua and that a night, the sun hurries to the place where it rises. These passages seems to describe the sun literally moving in the heavens and for 3/4 of church history that was how people interpreted them.
Peoples individual interpretation may be subjective, but there is a clear difference in how easy it is to arrive at a figurative interpretation from reading the text. People did not realise the geocentric passages shouldn't be taken literally until Copernicus showed us the earth went round the sun. Yet during the same time there were scholars and theologians who realised from the text of Genesis that it shouldn't be taken literally.At the end of the day you're still arguing something subjective. I've said this at least five times now. I understand my position is philosophical, I've been arguing that your position is just as philosophical.
But science has.Operational science has NOT proven a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.
A historical interpretation of which chapter?I take a historical interpretation of Genesis and I don't see a contradiction.
So the genealogy does not link Jesus directly to Adam as you claimed?The whole genealogy is not "supposed". What is "supposed" is that Jesus was the actual biological son of Joseph.
So, No.Is there anything in the NT references to creation that demands it not be literal? No.Is there anything in the NT references to Genesis that demand the earlier parts are literal?
When do the NASB, ESV and BHS say animals and birds were created?I use the NASB and the ESV for my English versions. I use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia for my Hebrew bible.
I certainly do believe that God performed a physical miracle that gave Israel more daylight to destroy their enemies.
You don't seem to.
I have no problem with the literal six day creation and neither did God.At least I addressed your points. Simply quoting Exodus 20:11 to everything you couldn't deal with is not that much of an answer.
I don't quite understand why you are bent on denying the "six day" creation in Genesis. But it's there to stay. Another reference:And morning and evening are always literal?
Gen 49:27 Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil.
Maybe numbers are always literal?
Gen 37:9 Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me."
Rev 13:1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads.
Maybe it is the word day that is always literal.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
No, sorry, not that either. You cannot limit biblical imagery to specific vocabularies. It would be a lot better to look at how the day of Genesis are interpreted elsewhere in scripture or look at its context in Genesis. Unfortunately no one in scripture interprets the days as literal history, not even Moses in Exodus 20:11 where he used the days to teach Sabbath observance not creationism. Meanwhile if we look at context, Genesis 1 is followed by another creation account which gives a completely different order of creation. That is not a context that suggests the creation accounts are literal.
It fails because it is a gross oversimplification that ignores how much of what you call operational science is supported by only very indirect experiment and observation while what you classify as historical sciences is based on observation, experiment, testing and confirmation from multiple sources.
I never doubted that change (evolution) occurs. I doubt that macroevolution occurs - it appears though that we define this term differently.You did not ask about disproving creationism you asked experiment supporting evolution.
This is were our terms get confused. Evolutionists and creationists have similar terms, but use/define them differently. Though speciation could be macroevolution, I believer the speciation we observe is actually microevolution. This problem is formed because "created kind" does not fit neatly in the evolutionist taxonomic grouping. A created kind may be identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and even the "family".Speciation is of course macroevolution.
I've already discussed this. I didn't avoid it. It is you that denied the distinctions of operational and historical science.What are the implication of rhetoric? Only that you want to avoid discussing actual evidence as we can see the way you ignored my discussion of the evidence available when when heliocentrism was accepted, and the reliability of fossil evidence.
You do realize that creationists do not take every word of the Bible literally. Right? You're not the only one who understands that literary devices exist.As long as you don't take it literally.
That if you take the plain meaning literally it is geocentric?
Science as a term by itself is ambiguous and generic. This comment makes no true sense. Somehow I think you're talking about the "science" that's done on the foundation of philosophical assumptions and not the "science" that gave us medicine.But science has.
The whole book.A historical interpretation of which chapter?
If you want to be technical it only links Joseph directly to Adam biologically. Either way Adam is presented as a real historical person.So the genealogy does not link Jesus directly to Adam as you claimed?
Is this what you believe? Are you saying believe the genealogy is falsified?What about Matthews genealogy, what about all the OT genealogies that go back to Adam.The whole genealogy is what people supposed Jesus genealogy was.
So you agree that it is possible that the creation account was intended by the author to be understood literally?So, No.
When do the NASB, ESV and BHS say animals and birds were created?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?