Science in the Bible at odds with other arguments?

[Greg1234]

You know very well that I don't interpret the Bible through 'Darwinism' and object profusely to anyone who does, (see my arguments with Cupid Dave)

Well....instead you just say metaphor then you insert your theory of choice while systematically smothering any non-Darwinian and metaphorical interpretations, thus siphoning people into Darwinism.

But yes, the bible and some other texts would take precedence over Darwinism interpretation-wise.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian,

To call the juice of grapes 'blood' is certainly a metaphor pointing to the Passover seder and one of the elements of communion. And human flesh is flesh as well.

Of course I agree it is a metaphor, but then again I think Leviticus is also figuratively pointing to Christ's sacrifice too. You have to insist on literalism to read the passage as an exposition of biblical haematology, in which case why not take the grape blood literally too?

As far as I can tell, none of the Hebrew words translated 'life' ever refer to plants. Again, if you want to call them life, then you give a different definition of it than God does. And that's okay, but you can't then use your definition to prove anything about what God says about life. He created it. He defined it.

He created it and spoke about it to the Isrealites, but does that mean the words used are God definitions or that he communicated to the Israelites in the lexical categorise and semantic ranges of their own language? The Hebrew chai is just used for animals (and humans) but is that just a Hebrew distinction or is it God's? Our word life is much broader the semantic range of chai, but does that mean our concept is wrong and plants aren't alive, or does it simply tell us that they simply aren't animals?

And I said nothing about atonement in my remarks.

Which is why I went back to the OT verses to look at what the passage was really talking about. Leviticus anyway, Genesis 9 doesn't mention atonement but it isn't a major leap to see that the reason for the reference in Genesis 9 was laying the foundations for the Levitical sacrificial system.

 

[Keachian]

Well....instead you just say metaphor then you insert your theory of choice while systematically smothering any non-Darwinian and metaphorical interpretations, thus siphoning people into Darwinism.

Yep and that'd be why I understand Genesis 1 as prophecy, Genesis 3 as pointing to Christ. In no way am I inserting anything into the Bible. I quite clearly say that the Bible on the one hand says "this" in all its wonderful layers upon layers of interpretation. And on the other hand our understanding of what creation says is "that"

I even go further and talk about the Bible very much being an image not just of God but of its writers in that we see their understanding of the universe and I just as much relish that as anything else.

But yes, the bible and some other texts would take precedence over Darwinism interpretation-wise.

No, you have yet to show me any valid reason for me to accept your ecclectic selection of philosophies and other religions including magic to interpret the Bible, Kabbalah is magic didn't you read where God said that magic was forbidden and since when did gnosticism become in anyway shape or form a valid Christian belief?

 

[Greg1234]

Yep and that'd be why I understand Genesis 1 as prophecy, Genesis 3 as pointing to Christ. In no way am I inserting anything into the Bible. I quite clearly say that the Bible on the one hand says "this" in all its wonderful layers upon layers of interpretation. And on the other hand our understanding of what creation says is "that".

As just given.

No, you have yet to show me any valid reason for me to accept your ecclectic selection of philosophies and other religions including magic to interpret the Bible, Kabbalah is magic didn't you read where God said that magic was forbidden and since when did gnosticism become in anyway shape or form a valid Christian belief?

Frogs turning into princes is magic. Darwinism is unorthodox and forbidden .

But like I said, the bible and some other texts would take precedence over Darwinism interpretation-wise.

 

[Keachian]

As just given.

reading comprehension Greggy, you'll see that my ideas are far closer to NOMA than what you are suggesting.

Frogs turning into princes is magic. Darwinism is unorthodox and forbidden .

But like I said, the bible and some other texts would take precedence over Darwinism interpretation-wise.

I never said Darwinism was orthodox. Regardless of the fact that it's not. I'm not saying that the extrabiblical sources are unorthodox and heretical because Darwinism is orthodox, they're completely unorthodox and heretical because Gnosticism denies the deity of Christ kaballah is magic and Greek philosophy is totally useless in understanding a Hebrew Theological text.

 

[Greg1234]

reading comprehension Greggy,

I never said Darwinism was orthodox.

Of course it isn't.

Regardless of the fact that it's not. I'm not saying that the extrabiblical sources are unorthodox and heretical because Darwinism is orthodox, they're completely unorthodox and heretical because Gnosticism denies the deity of Christ kaballah is magic and Greek philosophy is totally useless in understanding a Hebrew Theological text.

Even as "bad, cruel, atrocious, disdainful, and despicable" as the bible and other texts are, they would still take precedence over Darwinism interpretation-wise. See??

 

[Keachian]

Even as "bad, cruel, atrocious, disdainful, and despicable" as the bible and other texts are, they would still take precedence over Darwinism interpretation-wise. See??

Actually lets just drop your obsession with Darwinism for a moment here. These texts including Darwinism should have NO interpretational merit and as far as I'm concerned Gnosticism and Kabbalism are barely fit to wipe my feet on

 

[SkyWriting]

How does evolution stroke our egos?

The idea "evolution" can be god and form matter without the intervention or purpose of an
outside intelligence bolsters man's idea that he is master of his own destiny and owes no
moral obligation to anyone.

If God created man, then we owe Him thanks.
And have an obligation to behave ourselves.
Otherwise, just let the excess children starve. Baaa Humbug!

 

[SkyWriting]

Are grapes alive? Deut 32:14 and you drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape. Lev 17:11 NRSV For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement. Leviticus say the life of flesh is in the blood. Isn't that just talking about animals in the first place? Just because animals have their life in their blood, it doesn't mean plants don't have life somewhere else.
A bigger problem is that animal blood doesn't make atonement for our lives. Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Instead the Levitical sacrifices were simply a foreshadowing of the real atonement, Christ's death on the cross. Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities. Should we base our understanding of biology on a passage that is speaking figuratively?

Leviticus 17:11

New International Version (NIV)
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[a]

Footnotes: Leviticus 17:11 Or atonement by the life in the blood


Should we base our biology on there being life in blood? I'd go along with that.
That we need blood for life? I'd go with that.
That life and blood are intertwined? I'd go with that.
That animal blood must be shed for us to live? I'd go with that.
That human blood must die so that we can live? Darwin would go with that.
That human blood must be spilled so that other humans can live? I'd go with that.

I don't see your hang up at all.

 

[Assyrian]

The idea "evolution" can be god and form matter without the intervention or purpose of an
outside intelligence bolsters man's idea that he is master of his own destiny and owes no
moral obligation to anyone.

If God created man, then we owe Him thanks.
And have an obligation to behave ourselves.
Otherwise, just let the excess children starve. Baaa Humbug!

Dicken's Christmas Carol, where Scrooge espouses this tender philosophy, was written 16 years before The Origin of Species.

Which passage? You covered a bunch...even grapes.

the discussion was on 'the life is in the blood' so, the Leviticus passage.

 

[SkyWriting]

Dicken's Christmas Carol, where Scrooge espouses this tender philosophy, was written 16 years before The Origin of Species.

So clearly Darwin was just rehashing old ideas that had been around for ages. We already knew that was the case.
You didn't think he brought anything new to the table, did you? He just rehashed old ideas that have floated
around for ages and used contemporary observations to make them seem more relevant.

 

[Assyrian]

So clearly Darwin was just rehashing old ideas that had been around for ages. We already knew that was the case.
You didn't think he brought anything new to the table, did you? He just rehashed old ideas that have floated
around for ages and used contemporary observations to make them seem more relevant.

If Darwin was just rehashing old ideas, why blame evolution? Of course you would have to show Darwin was advocating Scrooges' ideas first.

 

[Assyrian]

In post 49 you wrote:

Which passage? You covered a bunch...even grapes.

When I told you it was Leviticus in post 50, you responded, not in another post but by going back and editing post 49, a post I have already answered I only found your new response by accident. What are you playing at?

Leviticus 17:11

New International Version (NIV)
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[a]

Footnotes: Leviticus 17:11 Or atonement by the life in the blood

Should we base our biology on there being life in blood? I'd go along with that.
That we need blood for life? I'd go with that.
That life and blood are intertwined? I'd go with that.
That animal blood must be shed for us to live? I'd go with that.
That human blood must die so that we can live? Darwin would go with that.
That human blood must be spilled so that other humans can live? I'd go with that.

I don't see your hang up at all.

There is a difference between saying blood is necessary for animals (and humans) to live, and claiming the an animal's 'life' exists only in the blood, or that an organism without blood like a plant is not alive.

 

[SkyWriting]

In regards to your post above, a modern depiction of the earth today:

Good sleuthing! It seems that some communicators, even today, get the point across without resorting to over analysis.

 

[SkyWriting]

When I told you it was Leviticus in post 50, you responded, not in another post but by going back and editing post 49, a post I have already answered I only found your new response by accident. What are you playing at?

No evil intended. My error. You don't restate your points so I had to go back to find them. Not your problem, you can be as terse as you please.

There is a difference between saying blood is necessary for animals (and humans) to live, and claiming the an animal's 'life' exists only in the blood, or that an organism without blood like a plant is not alive.

I agree with all of those. If that's the result of literalism, I stand by it fully.

 

[Keachian]

Are Jellyfish alive?

 

[jackmt]

Are Jellyfish alive?

No bones, no heart, no brain, no blood. It is very questionable whether they have zoos. Perhaps they have an odd form of bios.

 

[Keachian]

No bones, no heart, no brain, no blood. It is very questionable whether they have zoos. Perhaps they have an odd form of bios.

zoos?
bios?

 

[florida2]

No bones, no heart, no brain, no blood. It is very questionable whether they have zoos. Perhaps they have an odd form of bios.

Um, what?

What scientific definition of being alive do you use?

 

[jackmt]

Um, what?

What scientific definition of being alive do you use?

I was using the biblcal definition. Zoos is animal or spirit life, bios is plant life. Compare with zoology and biology.