Puzzled.....

[Ark Guy]

Recently I have been puzzled by the Theo-Evo sect here on this forum.

They all claim to be followers of the Holy Bible..yet seem to spend an awfull lot of time denying it.

For example they deny the creation story as presented in the opening book of Gods Word. They claim it's a myth.

They deny Adam existed...despite the evidence presented in the 80% thread that shows the NT presents Adam as literal and quite real.

They deny the 6 day creation despite it is confirmed by the 10 commandments and the usage of the word <i>YOM</i>

They deny that Enoch existed.

They deny the genealogy presented in the book of Luke.

They claim the Word of God is chocked full of unanswerable contradictions.

They claim that the flood of Noah...wasn't quite what the Word of God makes it out to be.

The list goes on, but I think those of you reading this should have seen my point by now...which opens up another question.

How do they establish what parts of the bible are fact and what parts are fiction?

Did Jesus really turn water into wine..or is this just another metophoric myth with some sort of spiritual meaning?
How about the resurrection? Did it really happen? We all understand that the resurrection is scientifically impossible.(just like the creation) So, did it really happen?

So my evo friends...how do you seperate the biblical fact from fiction? Do you have a Gnostic wisdom? Secret decoder ring? Do you filter the bible through the dogmatic religion of evolutionISM?
I ask this because it's obvious that the Theo-Evos don't use scripture to interpret scripture.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I pass the Bible (like all books) through my built in bs filter.

We all posess such a filter to varying degree and bias.

I am always loathe to call myself a 'follower of the Bible'. I would rather say I am a 'follower of the Bible after said passing through my falsity-finding filter'.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Nope. I'm not a follower of the Bible. I'm a follower of Jesus. You seem to be puzzled indeed.

Thing is, I don't seperate the "fact" from "fiction". It doesn't actually matter to me a tarnished tuppence whether Enoch or Noah were real people, or if they lived to be 600 years old or whatever. I read for theological lesson.

What does matter to me is:

(a) people insisting that folk have to swallow literality to be proper Christians
(b) people putting up junk science, like moon dust depths and so on

It doesn't matter to me in and of itself whether you take Genesis 1 literally or not. It seems to matter to you that I don't, though.

 

[Ark Guy]

Well if Adam was a myth...and if Noah was a myth and if Enoc was a myth...why Not Jesus?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

We've done this one on another thread.

 

[Ark Guy]

No ...you dodged the issue. As expected

 

[Vance]

Ark Guy, why should we provide detailed answers to the same questions over and over? This question has been answered in this forum many, many times, but you ask it again as if it has never been answered. This is disengenuous, to say the least. Intentional misleading, more likely.

Tactic: ask question, question answered. Ask question again, question answered. Ask question eventually for the tenth time, opponent throws up hands and refuses to type the same explanation yet another time. Say that opponent is avoiding the question or has no answer, etc. Repeat, hoping someone new to the forum will see that you have just "shut down" the evilutionists.

You are playing games and only the most ignorant hereabouts won't be able to see through it.

Bottom-line: this point has been raised and refuted so often that it does not deserve another answer.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No ...you dodged the issue. As expected

I did no such thing. I explained the difference between the Gospels and the Genesis accounts. If you are incapable of understanding my answers, then that is your problem, Ark Guy.

Ask yourself a question - why am I able to have a polite, constructive, respectful conversation with Buck and not with you?

 

[Buck72]

Nope. I'm not a follower of the Bible. I'm a follower of Jesus. You seem to be puzzled indeed.

Hey Karl - I wanted to get back to you on this one in the other thread that LC started...I'll touch on it here though:

Jesus is called the WORD OF GOD throughout scripture, the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and God through the WORD brought all things into creation, apart from Whom nothing was created that has been created. In Revelation He returns to earth as the WORD OF GOD. Now, the bonded leather cover and paper pages are themselves not the object of worship, but rather the subject of the very word here as you rightly stated earlier, Christ. There is a scarlet thread throughout the Bible that is strikingly evident as to the diety of Christ and His authorship of the Bible. It is through the Bible that we come to know Him, and His ways, and our ways in contrast, through the Bible (Word of God) are shown in perilous violation of His holiness (the Law, in the Bible), thereby awakening us to the knowledge of the judgement (again, through the Bible). It is again in the Bible, that we also learn of the forgiveness of Christ, the manner in which we should walk in His obedience, and the structure of His church, the promises to come and the signs that will bring about the end of the ages, that we may KNOW. Through the Bible, is knowledge, wisdom, and understanding...these are the words of God, Christ being the incarnate word of God, the embodiment of his truth, the Alpha and Omega.

I could write about ten pages of detail here, but I'll be concise for now.

Thing is, I don't seperate the "fact" from "fiction". It doesn't actually matter to me a tarnished tuppence whether Enoch or Noah were real people, or if they lived to be 600 years old or whatever.

If the Bible is true and it says that people existed, that in fact, didn't exist, then it is not true. Somebody, either the Bible, or the "fact-finder" is a liar. That is the only outcome of such a disagreement. Unless there are proven, empiracal FACTS that tell me otherwise, by faith I accept that Noah obeyed the word of God and escaped the judgement of the Flood, just like it says. Notwithstanding any counter-theories, the entire planet bears the scars of this flood from the deepest valleys to the top of Mt Everest. The flood violently changed the entire balance of the earth, leaving behind a place very different from what was described in the first chapter of Genesis...more on that "firmament" another time. (Where did the flood water come from anyway? - check out the firmament possibilities!)

What does matter to me is:

(a) people insisting that folk have to swallow literality to be proper Christians
(b) people putting up junk science, like moon dust depths and so on

It doesn't matter to me in and of itself whether you take Genesis 1 literally or not. It seems to matter to you that I don't, though.

Junk science is discouraging to folks, like us, looking for facts. I'm looking for facts all the time, I have been a science "geek" since childhood. What I have noticed through again, and again is the inexplicable bias so many scientists have toward the creation. It also bothers me that nearly every detail of evolution contradicts the Bible (hence the heated debates). Now, call me crazy, but I believe that Christ told us in the last days things were going to get really, really bad. Scripture repeatedly warns us against deception, and tells us that satan is the "deceiver" who runs amok on the earth spreading lies, splitting the church and turning us against one another. I feel a cold chill whenever I read about satan, and his methods of deception...he manisfests himself as an "angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14), hunts us like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Pet 5:8), and that even the demons believe in Christ! (Jam 2:19). Our faith needs to be rooted in the word, the full counsel of God, otherwise what guarantee do we have that we are not wandering from the straight and narrow? (These verses are not intended to discredit anyone's faith, but to offer a clear warning to us all to check and adjust our "bs filter" [to quote Chi] to what is true and what is [even potentially] not true).

2Co 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

Rom 16:17-18 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Jam 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.

1Jo 2:26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

 

[Ark Guy]

Ark Guy, why should we provide detailed answers to the same questions over and over? This question has been answered in this forum many, many times, but you ask it again as if it has never been answered. This is disengenuous, to say the least. Intentional misleading, more likely.

Tactic: ask question, question answered. Ask question again, question answered. Ask question eventually for the tenth time, opponent throws up hands and refuses to type the same explanation yet another time. Say that opponent is avoiding the question or has no answer, etc. Repeat, hoping someone new to the forum will see that you have just "shut down" the evilutionists.

You are playing games and only the most ignorant hereabouts won't be able to see through it.

Bottom-line: this point has been raised and refuted so often that it does not deserve another answer.

Tactic employed by vance..claim yoou have answered the question.
Keep making the claim.
Throw in a few ad-homs hoping the YEC's will stop asking difficult questions.

 

[Buck72]

An afterthought on literalism:

Can an average person read Genesis (or the Bible) and figure out what it means? Or does one need an "interpreter" or "guru" to explain the actual meaning of the Bible, to include para and extra-biblical answers and outline to bring the text in conformity with (evolution) in order to ascertain the REAL truth?

The Bible is about 4,000 years old.
Darwinian evolution is less than 150 years old.

The main argument I have against evolution is the measurement of time required to bring about the "beginning" to present day. If we examine the dating processes, based upon uniformitarianism (ie: no flood), we find that billions of years is an erroneous conclusion by men looking to base evidences on chance...of course the evidence is not evident, but perhaps billions of years makes it evident...just add lots of time and anything could happen, just not the six-day creation, that does not fit in science, or does it?

2Pe 3:1-6 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

God did not make a world and speak a word that are incompatible. They are wholly compatible and one in the same. The creation and the Creator are quite unified with the word (the Bible). Man's conclusion of the age of the earth might be better critiqued for its "irrefutable" verdict. If the billions of years were removed, the whole of evolution would collapse...that cannot happen, so its defenders will defend it with all manner of "science", even to ostracize, ridicule, and slander YEC as being "non-science".

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Tactic employed by vance..claim yoou have answered the question.
Keep making the claim.
Throw in a few ad-homs hoping the YEC's will stop asking difficult questions.

Except we have answered the question.

Now go away. Your presence here is about as constructive as a three week dead fish in a chicken pie factory.

 

[Ark Guy]

I did no such thing. I explained the difference between the Gospels and the Genesis accounts. If you are incapable of understanding my answers, then that is your problem, Ark Guy.

Ask yourself a question - why am I able to have a polite, constructive, respectful conversation with Buck and not with you?

The question that has not been answered is how do you know the fact form fiction..Will you ever answer that?

I've been reading the bible for years and now all of a sudden I'm told by the Theo-Evos Enoch is not real?

What other surprises do the Theo-Evos have instore for us? Was King David real? Did he reallly send Bathshebas husband to the front line to be killed or was this also a myth and just some spiritual expression?


You see KLBC, your open interpretation creates a shadow of doubt on the entire scripture from Genesis to Revelations.

I've presented the Evolution filter and Genesis method because that certainly is true.
I've extrapolated that into other verses that are also according to scientist scientificallly impossible...then all of a sudden you get hostile and you choose to end the polite discussion by avoiding a real answer to the questions.

I'm just asking..you keep avoiding.

So how do you establish what parts of the bible are fact and what parts are fiction?

 

[Ark Guy]

Except we have answered the question.

Now go away. Your presence here is about as constructive as a three week dead fish in a chicken pie factory.

The ad-homs continue.

Will yoou ever tell us how you establish just what verses are fact and which verses are fiction?

 

[Ark Guy]

What is your form of hermenuitics?

 

[Ark Guy]

Buck, in the fllowing verse you posted there is an interesting ststement..prophetic:


2Pe 3:1-6 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

Some translations use, they deliberately forgot in place of it escapes their notice.

The Theo-Evos were predicted.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

An afterthought on literalism:

Can an average person read Genesis (or the Bible) and figure out what it means? Or does one need an "interpreter" or "guru" to explain the actual meaning of the Bible, to include para and extra-biblical answers and outline to bring the text in conformity with (evolution) in order to ascertain the REAL truth?

Is the important truth that the Bible is concerned with that the world was made in six days? I don't think it is. The important truths can indeed be understood by an average person reading Genesis and not being diverted by unnecessary questions about its literal historicity.

The Bible is about 4,000 years old.

Not sure about that - the oldest bits are generally held to be 3000 years old by most scholars; of course the newest bits are less than 2000 years old.

Darwinian evolution is less than 150 years old.

Hold on to that thought - it's going to be very important in a moment.

The main argument I have against evolution is the measurement of time required to bring about the "beginning" to present day. If we examine the dating processes, based upon uniformitarianism (ie: no flood)

Your definition is a little off. Uniformitarianism merely proposes that the physical universe operates by the same laws now as it did in the past. It is in fact a profoundly Christian influenced idea - that God made a universe that is comprehensible and ordered.

we find that billions of years is an erroneous conclusion by men looking to base evidences on chance...of course the evidence is not evident, but perhaps billions of years makes it evident...just add lots of time and anything could happen, just not the six-day creation, that does not fit in science, or does it?

Remember that 150 years of Darwinian evolution? Your problem here is chronology. The antiquity of the earth - that it could not be merely thousands of years old - was established by such men as Lyell and Sedgewick long before Darwin even conceived of evolution. There was simly no evolutionary theory for them to need to defend. The late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century gentlemen scientists were Christians; their base assumption was creationist but their discoveries forced them to modify that paradigm.

Quote cut for brevity

God did not make a world and speak a word that are incompatible. They are wholly compatible and one in the same.

That sounds like pantheism - if the Word is God as John asserts, then the Word cannot be the creation. But that aside...

The creation and the Creator are quite unified with the word (the Bible).

I'd agree. But I cannot agree that the creation accords with a literal intepretation of the Bible, because it quite simply doesn't, as the Christian gentlement scientists of 200 years ago finally had to conclude.

Man's conclusion of the age of the earth might be better critiqued for its "irrefutable" verdict. If the billions of years were removed, the whole of evolution would collapse...that cannot happen, so its defenders will defend it with all manner of "science",

Do you have good reasons to doubt that science? To show it as being erroneous? Do you have evidence that the motivation of earth scientists is actually to support evolution? Because that is what you are saying. Fundamentally, you are accusing them of dishonesty, which brings me to:

even to ostracize, ridicule, and slander YEC as being "non-science".

Which the "millions of years is just to support evolution" accusation does to mainstream science. But in what way are creationists "ostracized"? Creation Science organisations are always talking about how many accepted scientists are creationists! Ridicule? Well, we're only human, and there's only so many times you can address the depth of moon dust or the shrinking sun argument with a straight face. Slander? Well, that's an accusation you need to support. To be honest, most working scientists don't do anything to creationists because they're barely aware of them.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The ad-homs continue.

Will yoou ever tell us how you establish just what verses are fact and which verses are fiction?

I have already explained:

(1) I do not think in terms of fact and fiction. I think in terms of theological truth.

(2) I do not bother to seperate literal and non-literal because I think it is a matter of supreme unimportance.

Now. The question is answered. Again. Do not say it hasn't been again. That the answer isn't agreeable to you is neither here nor there.

 

[Ark Guy]

I have already explained:

(1) I do not think in terms of fact and fiction. I think in terms of theological truth.

So if I claim that Jesus didn't rise from the dead I could then say it really doesn't matter because it is about theological truth and not literal truth?

(2) I do not bother to seperate literal and non-literal because I think it is a matter of supreme unimportance.

It has to be a matter of supreme impportance. If the bible is a fairy tale..then what good is it?

Now. The question is answered. Again. Do not say it hasn't been again. That the answer isn't agreeable to you is neither here nor there.

If that's an answer I'll be honest...I'm extremely disappointed. For the fervent and harsh style in which you post I thought you would have had a much better answer.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Fairy tale is your phrase not mine. If you are not capable of escaping from the false dichotomy of "literal truth" versus "fairy tale" then there is little point carrying on because you will not be able to understand what I am saying.