Of course life can come from non-life.

[thaumaturgy]

--- I was just coming back with that [capitalization] point.

I don't think it has too much of value as a point.

I can find indication in Strongs later on that "God is sometimes called qadowsh (holy)" as in Isaiah, but Strongs still appears to list it as an adjective.

I will admit there might be some other exegetical explanation. But that still doesn't explain "Holy Bible" as having God's name on it. In this case it only makes sense to assume "holy" is adjectival.

Isn't it funny how the most ridiculously tiny little things can be a point of debate in this "Inerrant" book?

I find it amazing that YOU, a literalist, chose to go with a distinctly non-literal interpretation of a simple adjective and applied it in a way that stretches the meaning of the word. A funny little "hyperlegalistic" interpretation leveraged off of one case of capitalization.

Does it bother you when you have to jump through those sorts of hoops?

What do you think that does to our impression of your points in relation to science? In its relation to the Bible you insist no hypothesis can go against the Bible. Normally that's not a problem for us scientists while you religious folks are able to come up with goof "embedded age" logic pretzels to help you avoid your bible going against the scientific data, but occasionally you folks want scientists to kowtow to your desires of what can and can't be considered.

That's when we have problems. So you can go ahead and call a digitally remastered copy of a 17th century book a "first edition", and you can go ahead and call your "embedded age" thing an example of god not practicing deception, and you can go ahead and insist that qadowsh is a noun and hence can be used interchangably as such whenever it suits your point.

But keep in mind that science only works when we play by a set of strict rules and it doesn't allow for you or anyone else to dictate what it must kowtow to.

You can't dictate to science when it suits you. Sometimes things come up that may not suit you. You can't just run away from them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think it has too much of value as a point.

I can find indication in Strongs later on that "God is sometimes called qadowsh (holy)" as in Isaiah, but Strongs still appears to list it as an adjective.

I will admit there might be some other exegetical explanation. But that still doesn't explain "Holy Bible" as having God's name on it. In this case it only makes sense to assume "holy" is adjectival.

Just do yourself (and us) a favor and admit that despite your (what is it?) 30 years of study in the Scriptures, you still make rookie mistakes.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just do yourself (and us) a favor and admit that despite your (what is it?) 30 years of study in the Scriptures, you still make rookie mistakes.

Show me my mistake.

I showed you my work (using Strongs). Show me how "Holy BIble" is "God's Name" on the bible and not an adjective?

Oh, while you're at it, prove to me that Isaiah 57 is referring to God as named Holy and not a shortened version of "Holy One" as is more common.

Go ahead. I would love to see your exegesis.

But don't for a second think of me as a rookie.

(Note which of us has gone back to the original Hebrew in this debate.....rookie.)

Also: Note that I have allowed that I might be mistaken, something you Christians almost never admit. That's because you don't bother to actually think through your own claims. I'm what is called a real scientist in that I know I don't know everything.

I do however insist that when a person with demonstrated weak language skills takes me on in a language debate that they back up their claims.

You see, AV, apart from being a professional scientist, I also have an extremely good vocabulary and a love of language that rivals my science skills if not outpaces them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me my mistake.

A 30-year veteran of the Bible should know what the Third Person's name is - (for Heaven's sake).

And even if you didn't agree with it, I have to believe a scholar would at least have heard it before.

What if I told you I studied rocks for 30 years and didn't know the difference between metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentary rocks?

I showed you my work (using Strongs).

Wow --- I think that explains it right there. (I did notice you went to Wro ... er ... Strong's Concordance to attempt to pwn me; but that's okay --- I'da just lectured you on KJVOism.)

Show me how "Holy BIble" is "God's Name" on the bible and not an adjective?

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy...

What more can I say?

Oh, while you're at it, prove to me that Isaiah 57 is referring to God as named Holy and not a shortened version of "Holy One" as is more common.

More common? I've always heard that's the Third Person's name.

"Holy One" refers to the Second Person.

[bible]Psalm 16:10[/bible]

Go ahead. I would love to see your exegesis.

There ya go.

But don't for a second think of me as a rookie.

Then don't make rookie mistakes --- like the doosey you made with trying to pin the Crusades on Christianity. That's what first got me to thinking about your depth of knowledge.

Then when you overlooked the fact that an independent Baptist isn't accountable to (who was it?) Martin Luther (?), I told myself I'm dealing with a rookie here.

But, if it helps any, I do believe you have studied [something] for 30 years.

(Note which of us has gone back to the original Hebrew in this debate.....rookie.)

Ummm --- ya.

Also: Note that I have allowed that I might be mistaken, something you Christians almost never admit. That's because you don't bother to actually think through your own claims. I'm what is called a real scientist in that I know I don't know everything.

But you use that as a strong point. The Bible says that we should move on from the milk of the Word to the meat of the Word.

[bible]1 Peter 2:2[/bible]
[bible]Hebrews 6:1-2[/bible]

I do however insist that when a person with demonstrated weak language skills takes me on in a language debate that they back up their claims.

Well, if you're going to consult Strong's [dis]Concordance, I'm gonna consider your language skills, shall we say, challenged?

You see, AV, apart from being a professional scientist, I also have an extremely good vocabulary and a love of language that rivals my science skills if not outpaces them.

I will not doubt you one tiny bit here; but it only shows when you talk science --- not Scripture.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Thaumaturgy, have a look at this:
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=31030
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=13173

 

[thaumaturgy]

A 30-year veteran of the Bible should know what the Third Person's name is - (for Heaven's sake).

And even if you didn't agree with it, I have to believe a scholar would at least have heard it before.

OTHER than this point in Isaiah, could you please point me in the direction of another place in which the word HOLY is used as a PROPER NOUN rather than an adjective?

I'd be very happy if you would correct me on the קדוש point. Is it or is it not a HEBREW adjective?

I'm the first to confess I don't speak hebrew. I don't know its grammar. I have to rely on an outside source. What is your source and what does it say?

I will gladly admit my error. But I have to work from a standard which you have yet to provide.

Wow --- I think that explains it right there. (I did notice you went to Wro ... er ... Strong's Concordance to attempt to pwn me; but that's okay --- I'da just lectured you on KJVOism.)

So you dislike Strongs, but yet you don't bother to tell me what Hebrew words you are working from.

I understand you only use the KJV but that does not mean I made a mistake by definition.

The Strong's I am working from is the Strongs KJV Concordance.

What more can I say?

More common? I've always heard that's the Third Person's name.

"Holy One" refers to the Second Person.

cite a reference.

That's all I want. Just cite a reference don't tell me what your minister told you, cite a reference so I can be educated as well.

If you must discount Strong's, please do me the great favor of showing me specifically where in the Old Testament "Holy" is explicitly laid out as necessarily a proper noun.

Well, if you're going to consult Strong's [dis]Concordance, I'm gonna consider your language skills, shall we say, challenged?

Have you ever touched a logic book? Is it like holy water to a vampire for you? Can you formulate ONE argument that doesn't go off the rails almost immediately?

What does my language skill have to do with YOUR problems with Strongs?

I will not doubt you one tiny bit here; but it only shows when you talk science --- not Scripture.

Sorry but Scripture is written in language. If you have trouble with that, then I can't help you.

I would appreciate it if you would cite a reference as to the Isaiahan passage being a PROPER NOUN usage of Holy.

I will gladly admit I can be incorrect here, but the wording of it would indicate solely an adjective. The capitalization would indicate it could be a noun. But there is no other reason to believe that until you prove it.

That is why I went to Strongs. It will provide me with the original Hebrew which is listed as an adjective.

Again, I could be wrong and I will gladly fess up if I am.

But you need to do more than merely slag Strongs and call me a rookie.

But further your initial point that "Holy Bible" has the name of God is illogical. even if "holy" used in the Isaiah passage is a proper noun "holy" used in the phrase "Holy Bible" is clearly and obviously an adjective.

The logic error you are making here is best summarized in the phrase:

All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.

You find a unique point in linguistic history in which someone uses Holy as a proper noun and you thereby assume all uses are in that role?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, have a look at this:
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=31030
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=13173

Lord Ems, thanks. I didn't realize AV was fighting a "two front" war on Strong's and science. He is certainly busy.

 

[corvus_corax]

So you dislike Strongs, but yet you don't bother to tell me what Hebrew words you are working from.

Psst......AV1611VET has flat out stated that if the original hebrew disagrees with the 1611 KJV, then the Hebrew is wrong.

The Strong's I am working from is the Strongs KJV Concordance.

He often disagrees with Strongs Concordance. I gave up a long time ago using strongs (or the strongs based blueletterbible.org) when debating with AV.

If you must discount Strong's, please do me the great favor of showing me specifically where in the Old Testament "Holy" is explicitly laid out as necessarily a proper noun.

From the KJV (and the way it uses english) he already has. That it disagrees with the original Hebrew is not something that he will argue about. He's already stated it "If the original Hebrew disagrees with the KJV, then the original Hebrew is wrong"

That is why I went to Strongs. It will provide me with the original Hebrew which is listed as an adjective.

See my statement about AV's pov regarding the original Hebrew

even if "holy" used in the Isaiah passage is a proper noun "holy" used in the phrase "Holy Bible" is clearly and obviously an adjective.

Unless he views "Holy Bible" as "God Bible".
Remember, there is a certain degree of cognitive dissonance that you are dealing with.

 

[tanzanos]

Psst......AV1611VET has flat out stated that if the original hebrew disagrees with the 1611 KJV, then the Hebrew is wrong.

Oh for heaven's sake! When will you all realise that the Original Bible was written in English. When will you finally come to terms that Jesus was blonde blue eyed and spoke only English (the lord's official language). AV1 is correct when he states the authority of the 1611 KJV over all others.
Also God has an American passport and the promised land is the Bible belt! And dinosaurs were used as taxis before the flood, and the Earth is Flat!


All Hail AV1

Sorry but this thread demands one to totally disregard anything sane! So there!!!!!

 

[corvus_corax]

Oh for heaven's sake! When will you all realise that the Original Bible was written in English. When will you finally come to terms that Jesus was blonde blue eyed and spoke only English (the lord's official language). AV1 is correct when he states the authority of the 1611 KJV over all others.
Also God has an American passport and the promised land is the Bible belt! And dinosaurs were used as taxis before the flood, and the Earth is Flat!

And Noah lived in North America to boot (no joke, this was actually stated)
I guess, to be completely honest, what was stated was that Noah lived in what is now North America.

 

[Catholicon]

Sometimes I despair about my fellow Christian...

God blessed Humanity with intelligence for a reason, it's disrespectful to throw His gift away.

 

[FoeHammer]

Biological organism vs vitalistic lifeforce (in want of a better expression.)

Care to elaborate?

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Foe hammer, what kind of organic material was 'God' composed of? The fact is according to your story, God made inorganic material organic, and from the scientific point of view, inorganic material became organic through natural processes. The simple fact in order to believe either story you must accept the premise that inorganic material can somehow become organic material, however to accept the literal Christian point of view on Creation you must also go one assumption further, and posit the existence of a pre-existing incredibly complex intelligence. So I'll reiterate my original Challenge explain to me how it is more logical to believe inorganic material became organic material AND that an extremely complex intelligence existed than to believe that inorganic material became organic material through completely natural processes.

Who says the one belief is more or less logical than the other?

Both science and religion are claiming the same thing, but religions explanation A. is not an explanation at all as it gives us no new information as to the specific processes by which God did this, and B. is inherently less logical then the scientific explanation as it essentially IS the scientific explanation, but with a whack of supernatural presupposition thrown on top.

Oh! You do..... But there is no "scientific explanation" nor, more importantly, natural(istic) explanation for the origin of life from non-life. To pressupose the supernatural (beyond natural explanation) in light of this fact would appear to be as logical.

FoeHammer.

 

[thaumaturgy]

But there is no "scientific explanation" nor, more importantly, natural(istic) explanation for the origin of life from non-life. To pressupose the supernatural (beyond natural explanation) in light of this fact would appear to be as logical.

FoeHammer.

But you are incorrect. We have many indications of an inorganic-organic link. Just look at some of the work going on around trying to figure out why life is homochiral.

Here's an article that presents some pretty interesting links between a common mineral (calcite) and selective adsorption of the very chirality of compounds all life on earth uses.

And there are any number of routes by which we can spontaneously generate micellar structures, the first analogue of lipid bilayers which represent crude cell walls.

The possibility of early life from inorganic material is amazingly strong.

But most importantly to the whole discussion: all life is made of chemicals that when not assembled in organic molecules are plain ol' non-biological chemicals.

That's the key: WE ARE MADE OF THE SAME STUFF THAT MAKES UP THE NON-LIVING PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE.

We simply aren't special...we are just a different arrangement.

It would be more impressive if I couldn't go out in a quarry and find THIS:

(Apatite, a big portion of the chemistry of your bones, only this is a mineral from a quarry.)

or this:

Graphite. You aren't made of this polymorph of carbon, but carbon it is. You are made of a LOT of carbon.

Or this:

Water. This makes up a huge amount of you.

Why are we made of just plain ol' earth stuff if we bear so little relation to it?

 

[LittleNipper]

Sometimes I despair about my fellow Christian...

God blessed Humanity with intelligence for a reason, it's disrespectful to throw His gift away.

Reason and intelligence are not one of the gifts of the SPIRIT. In fact reason and intelligence seem rather to have been presented to Adam and Eve as something to desire at the time of the FALL, (see Genesis 3:4). GOD desires that we lean on HIM for direction, understanding, guidance. There is nothing wrong with thinking. There is everything wrong with leaving GOD out of that process. That is placing another god ahead of the GREAT I AM.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Care to elaborate?

FoeHammer.

I do not think that is actually necessary. Just put the bits together.

You: Abiogenesis: life from non-living matter.
The Bible: Life from God. Life comes from life.​

Me: Only that this is an equivocation of "life" as far as I am concerned.

Me: Biological organism vs vitalistic lifeforce (in want of a better expression.)​

 

[FishFace]

Reason and intelligence are not one of the gifts of the SPIRIT.

But in your book, they must surely be gifts from God.

In fact reason and intelligence seem rather to have been presented to Adam and Eve as something to desire at the time of the FALL, (see Genesis 3:4).

As I remember it what they desired was "knowledge of good and evil" not reason and intelligence.

GOD desires that we lean on HIM for direction, understanding, guidance. There is nothing wrong with thinking. There is everything wrong with leaving GOD out of that process. That is placing another god ahead of the GREAT I AM.

Did you not notice that the person to whom you replied believed in God? He certainly didn't leave God out of the process.

 

[FoeHammer]

But you are incorrect. We have many indications of an inorganic-organic link. Just look at some of the work going on around trying to figure out why life is homochiral.

Here's an article that presents some pretty interesting links between a common mineral (calcite) and selective adsorption of the very chirality of compounds all life on earth uses.

And there are any number of routes by which we can spontaneously generate micellar structures, the first analogue of lipid bilayers which represent crude cell walls.

The possibility of early life from inorganic material is amazingly strong.

But most importantly to the whole discussion: all life is made of chemicals that when not assembled in organic molecules are plain ol' non-biological chemicals.

That's the key: WE ARE MADE OF THE SAME STUFF THAT MAKES UP THE NON-LIVING PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE.

We simply aren't special...we are just a different arrangement.

It would be more impressive if I couldn't go out in a quarry and find THIS:


(Apatite, a big portion of the chemistry of your bones, only this is a mineral from a quarry.)

or this:

Graphite. You aren't made of this polymorph of carbon, but carbon it is. You are made of a LOT of carbon.

Or this:


Water. This makes up a huge amount of you.

Why are we made of just plain ol' earth stuff if we bear so little relation to it?

Do you have a natural explanation for the origin of life from non-life? A simple yes or no will do.

FoeHammer.

 

[LittleNipper]

But in your book, they must surely be gifts from God.



As I remember it what they desired was "knowledge of good and evil" not reason and intelligence.



Did you not notice that the person to whom you replied believed in God? He certainly didn't leave God out of the process.

Devils believe and tremble, that doesn't make them "saved" individuals. Adam and Eve fell because they listened to something other than to GOD's direction.

 

[Naraoia]

Do you have a natural explanation for the origin of life from non-life? A simple yes or know will do.

FoeHammer.

A simple yes or no (not know ) will probably not do, because the answer I think is closest to reality is "we have ideas and we are working on it but we aren't sure yet". That isn't equivalent to either a yes or a no. But I'm not at all well-read in this abiogenesis business.