Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

[TLK Valentine]

QV please:

Verbal plenary inspiration: This view gives a greater role to the human writers of the Bible while maintaining a belief that God preserved the integrity of the words of the Bible. The effect of inspiration was to move the writers so as to produce the words God wanted. In this view the human writers' "individual backgrounds, personal traits, and literary styles were authentically theirs, but had been providentially prepared by God for use as his instrument in producing Scripture." However, the theory nuances that "God so mysteriously superintended the process that every word written was also the exact word he wanted to be written—free from all error."

SOURCE

The doctrine is called: verbal plenary inspiration.

I know your opinion on the subject -- I was asking for Neogaia777's "different" knowledge.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This post is going to be about both creation and evolution being true or being a reality, based on this thread (below) and starting with some of my more recent posts in it (below)...

Genesis and Creation, Days are long "ages" ect...?

Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4 it is describing a literal history of an entire creation from beginning to end, days 1 through 7... And in or after Genesis 2:4 or starting with Genesis 2:5, it begins to to describe "it" in detail now or this time, beginning with everything that was happening with (the two races of) man and the land animals/beasts on day 6...

The whole of all the rest of the Bible (after Genesis 2:4) and even up to now, is all on day 6, and day 6 only, etc...

Day 7 begins after Armageddon or after Jesus returns to set up His Kingdom or rule and reign on earth, and that day will last until the end of this whole creations age final ending, etc...

The Garden of Eden was a special creation located in a specific region on the earth, and was populated with what would eventually become the race of the Sons of God both during and afterwards, etc, but that race, once they started encountering and began intermixing with the sons and daughters of men, were all but wiped out by the flood, which happened in the specific region of Mesopotamia, (where the original Son's of God were dwelling after the fall and after getting kicked out of the Garden), Anyway, were all but wiped out by a/the flood that happened there around 5700 BC, with only Noah and his family, and maybe Cain, remaining after that, etc, and they then eventually had no choice but to begin intermixing and interbreeding with the sons and daughters or men, or the other lesser race of man, after which their race and/or bloodline dwindled, or was made less, and became all but lost and/or gone after that, etc...

The original Sons of God, are called "just men made perfect", etc, but were of a different race or bloodline historically, etc, and began interbreeding with the other lesser race of man/men, etc, which in turn caused God to bring about the flood in their region, and wipe almost all of them out, etc...

And they lived perfectly, or their society was perfect really, but their great egotism and arrogance, resulted in them acting very wickedly, and when they began mixing with, and even interbreeding/crossbreeding with, the lesser race of man/men, etc, God had "had enough", etc, and that was "the last straw" concerning them for Him, etc, and so He decided to wipe out almost all of them from the face of the earth at that point, etc...

And then great egotism and/or arrogance persisted even yet again after the flood with the new race that had populated/re-populated there, etc, when they built the Tower of Babel, etc, when they then made or had caused God to have "had enough" yet again, etc, and the rest of that story you/me/we know, etc...

And it just seemed to keep happening again and again after that, etc...

But forget about about the whole arrogance/egotism of man and/or Sons of God for a minute, but let's just discuss the whole creation/evolution debate with what I just said, etc...

Questions so far...?

Discuss...?

God Bless!

I have learned to my cost on this forum through some exhaustive debates with evolutionists and atheists, that one can be sucked into a bottomless vortex where all intelligent thought is sucked out of one's brain, leaving just a dried up husk of a person.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have learned to my cost on this forum through some exhaustive debates with evolutionists and atheists, that one can be sucked into a bottomless vortex where all intelligent thought is sucked out of one's brain, leaving just a dried up husk of a person.

Well, I will try to a point, but also after a certain point it seems like it's getting pretty pointless as well, and that's when I usually stop for a while, and/or shake the dust off my feet and move on, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@TLK Valentine

I was bored, and waiting on a call, so I just took from your last post #277 what I thought was important off of it or from it and did a little bit of work with it offline for awhile while I was waiting on a call...

But here is what I took/gleaned from it as "important", or not totally meaningless to address or talk about, OK...

Is inspiring something the same as writing it? Does God give people the idea or the exact words?

Do you believe that the same exact idea can be conveyed using many different phrases and/or words?

Because they can, and in the pure language it would not matter, as there would not be this problem, etc, but I believe God is more than capable of causing or making people not mess the idea up that is meant to be conveyed just because of their imperfect and confused language and/or words, etc, He preserves and protects and watches over the people He inspires with their/His words, or Word, etc, and does this no matter what language they use, or where they are and/or come from, etc, so that the idea can never ever be polluted or diluted no matter how it is conveyed, or what language and/or dialect is used to convey it, etc...

Speaking in tongues...

The way speaking in tongues is supposed to work, is either by speaking in another foreign language that is known to some, and can be easily understood by some, or by speaking in languages that have long since passed, or have been "dead" for awhile, etc, or even by sometimes speaking in the pure and perfect language in which there is not the problem of having multiple different words for things, but that essentially mean the same thing, or have the same meaning, etc...

Speaking in the tongue(s) of "men and angels"...

Speaking in the "tongues of men and angels" means "using the tongues of men but that was in and/or from or was of angels", etc, and is a phrase from Paul's words that means men who spoke with the "tongues of men and angels", or that were "just men" but "whose words (or thoughts or ideas) were inspired or given to them by angels", etc, the key word here being the "and" part, etc...

The Angel in Revelation to John...

John's description of the Angel who spoke to him is pretty clear, and that He had many crowns and diadems, and stood with one foot on the land and one foot on the sea, and was, in short, (for there are many other things that are described about this particular Angel, etc), was like "the Son of God", etc...

Under the umbrella of the Father, etc...

If Gene Roddenberry was "one" with all his staff and producers, etc, then they would all be his words technically, etc...

And that's all I'm doing for now...

God Bless!

 

[TLK Valentine]

@TLK Valentine

I was bored, and waiting on a call, so I just took from your last post #277 what I thought was important off of it or from it and did a little bit of work with it offline for awhile while I was waiting on a call...

But here is what I took/gleaned from it as "important", or not totally meaningless to address or talk about, OK...

I can relate to your boredom, and suppose I should appreciate that you have deigned to address my questions...

Is inspiring something the same as writing it? Does God give people the idea or the exact words?

Do you believe that the same exact idea can be conveyed using many different phrases and/or words?

Answering a question with a question -- not a good start.

But to answer your question, while the idea can be conveyed using different phrases and/or words, it often isn't using even the same words and phrases.

After all, as any form of communication requires a sender and a receiver, whatever ideas the sender expresses is going to be interpreted by the receiver according to their (the receiver's) knowledge and experience.

So even the same words told to one person will end up conveying a different idea to the exact same words conveyed to another... because (spoiler alert!) people think differently.

Because they can, and in the pure language it would not matter, as there would not be this problem, etc, but I believe God is more than capable of causing or making people not mess the idea up that is meant to be conveyed just because of their imperfect and confused language and/or words, etc, He preserves and protects and watches over the people He inspires with their/His words, or Word, etc,

Ok, first of all you've invented the concept of "the pure language" out of whole cloth in order to use it as an excuse to say.... absolutely nothing of substance, because you have forgotten (or chosen to ignore) that even if humans were capable of understanding this invented "pure language"in order to receive knowledge infallibly from God, they would not be able to speak/write it in order to pass it on to the rest of us. So I'm going to have to reject your explanation.

Because you have also forgotten, or chosen to ignore, that the Bible was written in and translated into a variety of languages, and none of them were "pure." The writers of the Bible, like all fallible humans, were limited by their intellect, experiences, linguistic abilities, personal and cultural biases, and a host of other factors which would only be overcome if God chose to completely override their free will and write the words Himself -- which even a cursory reading of the Bible shows He did not do, and would cause quite the theological paradox if He had.

and does this no matter what language they use, or where they are and/or come from, etc, so that the idea can never ever be polluted or diluted no matter how it is conveyed, or what language and/or dialect is used to convey it, etc...

Utter nonsense. Ideas are always diluted by the language of the sender, and the comprehension of the receiver... for you to claim that the Bible speaks and is understood universally is refuted already by the very existence of 45,000 different Christian sects and denominations globally -- all reading the Bible, albeit in different forms, and in 704 different languages -- none of them "pure," whatever that's supposed to mean, anyway.

I mean, come on, man... the Catholics and Protestants don't even agree on how many books are even in the Bible! The Catholics say 73, the Protestants say 66.

So either you're mistaken, or God's plan to perfectly preserve His word went sideways at the worst possible time.

Speaking in tongues...

The way speaking in tongues is supposed to work, is either by speaking in another foreign language that is known to some, and can be easily understood by some, or by speaking in languages that have long since passed, or have been "dead" for awhile, etc, or even by sometimes speaking in the pure and perfect language in which there is not the problem of having multiple different words for things, but that essentially mean the same thing, or have the same meaning, etc...

Once again, you're using your invention of a "pure and perfect language" to fuel a lot of doubletalk. Or was I not supposed to notice that you've said nothing to refute my claim of "speaking in tongues" as incoherent babbling pretending to be language?

Speaking in the tongue(s) of "men and angels"...

Speaking in the "tongues of men and angels" means "using the tongues of men but that was in and/or from or was of angels", etc, and is a phrase from Paul's words that means men who spoke with the "tongues of men and angels", or that were "just men" but "whose words (or thoughts or ideas) were inspired or given to them by angels", etc, the key word here being the "and" part, etc...

So they were men, speaking as men, speaking the ideas that were given to them by angels... translated into human speech?

Now wouldn't it have been less embarrassing for you to have just said that in the first place?

The Angel in Revelation to John...

John's description of the Angel who spoke to him is pretty clear, and that He had many crowns and diadems, and stood with one foot on the land and one foot on the sea, and was, in short, (for there are many other things that are described about this particular Angel, etc), was like "the Son of God", etc...

Thank you; I have indeed read the Book of Revelation. (I have also consumed lysergic acid diethylamide, which could generate the described effect.)

Care to answer my question about that angel?

Under the umbrella of the Father, etc...

If Gene Roddenberry was "one" with all his staff and producers, etc, then they would all be his words technically, etc...

But he is not -- which would be difficult as 1. He was a mortal human being and 2. as a mortal human being, he died in 1991.

God, however, could be "one" with everyone, but chooses not to be out of respect for our free will. Every action we commit on this Earth is our own choice...

or is "inspired" a euphemism for "mind-controlled drone"?

And that's all I'm doing for now...

God Bless!

And what you have done is not nearly enough to fulfill your promise.
You made us all a guarantee, Neogaia... and once again, you have failed to deliver.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

QV please:

Verbal plenary inspiration: This view gives a greater role to the human writers of the Bible while maintaining a belief that God preserved the integrity of the words of the Bible. The effect of inspiration was to move the writers so as to produce the words God wanted. In this view the human writers' "individual backgrounds, personal traits, and literary styles were authentically theirs, but had been providentially prepared by God for use as his instrument in producing Scripture." However, the theory nuances that "God so mysteriously superintended the process that every word written was also the exact word he wanted to be written—free from all error."

SOURCE

The doctrine is called: verbal plenary inspiration.

So much for free will...

 

[TLK Valentine]

So much for free will...

Now, now... God doesn't want robots... except when He does.

 

[AV1611VET]

So much for free will...

Jude 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, now... God doesn't want robots... except when He does.

Would you know the difference between God's robots and God's secretaries if you saw them?

Was Jude a robot, or a secretary?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you know the difference between God's robots and God's secretaries if you saw them?

Of course not -- I would have to speak to them in order to make that distinction.

Was Jude a robot, or a secretary?

Neither, of course -- he was a high-ranking official in the Church who wanted to warn the early Christians that Christ's teachings shouldn't be twisted by infiltrators into a blank check for sinful behavior.

Going by the never-ending carousel of sin, ask for repentance, get forgiven, and sin again (often the very same sin), it would seem his warning fell on deaf ears.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, now... God doesn't want robots... except when He does.

Would you know the difference between God's robots and God's secretaries if you saw them?

Of course not -- I would have to speak to them in order to make that distinction.

Was Jude a robot, or a secretary?

Neither,

Thanks for the QED.

 

[coffee4u]

Are you not capable of learning a lesson from something that is not literally true?

Sure, but normally the person writing the story not only lets you know its a story they don't act like it really happened.

Romans 5:12-19
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned
Paul did not view Adam as a story. Adam was as real as Mosses.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."
As he did of Christ.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
It makes so sense to say Adam is fictional but Mosses and Christ were not. Paul only talks about all of them together like that because he believed all three to be literal men.

 

[Neogaia777]

I can relate to your boredom, and suppose I should appreciate that you have deigned to address my questions...



Answering a question with a question -- not a good start.

But to answer your question, while the idea can be conveyed using different phrases and/or words, it often isn't using even the same words and phrases.

After all, as any form of communication requires a sender and a receiver, whatever ideas the sender expresses is going to be interpreted by the receiver according to their (the receiver's) knowledge and experience.

So even the same words told to one person will end up conveying a different idea to the exact same words conveyed to another... because (spoiler alert!) people think differently.



Ok, first of all you've invented the concept of "the pure language" out of whole cloth in order to use it as an excuse to say.... absolutely nothing of substance, because you have forgotten (or chosen to ignore) that even if humans were capable of understanding this invented "pure language"in order to receive knowledge infallibly from God, they would not be able to speak/write it in order to pass it on to the rest of us. So I'm going to have to reject your explanation.

Because you have also forgotten, or chosen to ignore, that the Bible was written in and translated into a variety of languages, and none of them were "pure." The writers of the Bible, like all fallible humans, were limited by their intellect, experiences, linguistic abilities, personal and cultural biases, and a host of other factors which would only be overcome if God chose to completely override their free will and write the words Himself -- which even a cursory reading of the Bible shows He did not do, and would cause quite the theological paradox if He had.



Utter nonsense. Ideas are always diluted by the language of the sender, and the comprehension of the receiver... for you to claim that the Bible speaks and is understood universally is refuted already by the very existence of 45,000 different Christian sects and denominations globally -- all reading the Bible, albeit in different forms, and in 704 different languages -- none of them "pure," whatever that's supposed to mean, anyway.

I mean, come on, man... the Catholics and Protestants don't even agree on how many books are even in the Bible! The Catholics say 73, the Protestants say 66.

So either you're mistaken, or God's plan to perfectly preserve His word went sideways at the worst possible time.



Once again, you're using your invention of a "pure and perfect language" to fuel a lot of doubletalk. Or was I not supposed to notice that you've said nothing to refute my claim of "speaking in tongues" as incoherent babbling pretending to be language?



So they were men, speaking as men, speaking the ideas that were given to them by angels... translated into human speech?

Now wouldn't it have been less embarrassing for you to have just said that in the first place?



Thank you; I have indeed read the Book of Revelation. (I have also consumed lysergic acid diethylamide, which could generate the described effect.)

Care to answer my question about that angel?



But he is not -- which would be difficult as 1. He was a mortal human being and 2. as a mortal human being, he died in 1991.

God, however, could be "one" with everyone, but chooses not to be out of respect for our free will. Every action we commit on this Earth is our own choice...

or is "inspired" a euphemism for "mind-controlled drone"?


And what you have done is not nearly enough to fulfill your promise.
You made us all a guarantee, Neogaia... and once again, you have failed to deliver.

I feel like I have answered your questions to the best of my ability, and that your now just picking nits, so...?

Anyway, maybe I'll get back to you later, maybe, but for now I'm a little busy, so...?

Anyway,

Peace.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@TLK Valentine

If you care to re-phrase some of your words or responses into some very simple and short and direct questions, then I will do my best to respond or answer in the same kind of like manner if I can, but otherwise I'm going to have to pick apart your words for them myself, which I might do later, but I'm a little busy right now, ok...

Later/God Bless!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure, but normally the person writing the story not only lets you know its a story they don't act like it really happened.

You should read more stories before you say something quite so silly.

When was the last time you read a story that included the line, "And don't forget, boys and girls -- none of this actually happened"?

 

[Neogaia777]

I can relate to your boredom, and suppose I should appreciate that you have deigned to address my questions...



Answering a question with a question -- not a good start.

But to answer your question, while the idea can be conveyed using different phrases and/or words, it often isn't using even the same words and phrases.

After all, as any form of communication requires a sender and a receiver, whatever ideas the sender expresses is going to be interpreted by the receiver according to their (the receiver's) knowledge and experience.

So even the same words told to one person will end up conveying a different idea to the exact same words conveyed to another... because (spoiler alert!) people think differently.



Ok, first of all you've invented the concept of "the pure language" out of whole cloth in order to use it as an excuse to say.... absolutely nothing of substance, because you have forgotten (or chosen to ignore) that even if humans were capable of understanding this invented "pure language"in order to receive knowledge infallibly from God, they would not be able to speak/write it in order to pass it on to the rest of us. So I'm going to have to reject your explanation.

Because you have also forgotten, or chosen to ignore, that the Bible was written in and translated into a variety of languages, and none of them were "pure." The writers of the Bible, like all fallible humans, were limited by their intellect, experiences, linguistic abilities, personal and cultural biases, and a host of other factors which would only be overcome if God chose to completely override their free will and write the words Himself -- which even a cursory reading of the Bible shows He did not do, and would cause quite the theological paradox if He had.



Utter nonsense. Ideas are always diluted by the language of the sender, and the comprehension of the receiver... for you to claim that the Bible speaks and is understood universally is refuted already by the very existence of 45,000 different Christian sects and denominations globally -- all reading the Bible, albeit in different forms, and in 704 different languages -- none of them "pure," whatever that's supposed to mean, anyway.

I mean, come on, man... the Catholics and Protestants don't even agree on how many books are even in the Bible! The Catholics say 73, the Protestants say 66.

So either you're mistaken, or God's plan to perfectly preserve His word went sideways at the worst possible time.



Once again, you're using your invention of a "pure and perfect language" to fuel a lot of doubletalk. Or was I not supposed to notice that you've said nothing to refute my claim of "speaking in tongues" as incoherent babbling pretending to be language?



So they were men, speaking as men, speaking the ideas that were given to them by angels... translated into human speech?

Now wouldn't it have been less embarrassing for you to have just said that in the first place?



Thank you; I have indeed read the Book of Revelation. (I have also consumed lysergic acid diethylamide, which could generate the described effect.)

Care to answer my question about that angel?



But he is not -- which would be difficult as 1. He was a mortal human being and 2. as a mortal human being, he died in 1991.

God, however, could be "one" with everyone, but chooses not to be out of respect for our free will. Every action we commit on this Earth is our own choice...

or is "inspired" a euphemism for "mind-controlled drone"?


And what you have done is not nearly enough to fulfill your promise.
You made us all a guarantee, Neogaia... and once again, you have failed to deliver.

@TLK Valentine

This is what I have gleaned from your post that I didn't consider utter nonsense, or is just picking nits from your post so far...

God preserves His Gospel message and the truth about the Trinity and the big picture of scripture no matter what, the fact that some men have created so many different denominations over things that oftentimes don't even have anything to do with that is because of them, and is not anyone else's problem, including God's, etc...

Anyone can get the truth from a clear reading of scripture that they do on their own or all by themselves, regardless of what language or tongue they speak or whatever, and in that way, He has preserved it and preserved it perfectly, etc...

And free will is a perspective or point of view, and we only appear to have it from a certain perspective or point of view due to what we don't know or are not knowing, and you can ask me more about that if you wish...

And I told you the truth about the Angel in Revelation...

Anyway @TLK Valentine that's all I seemed to get from your post thus far, ask me more about it if you wish, ok...

God Bless!

 

[TLK Valentine]

I feel like I have answered your questions to the best of my ability, and that your now just picking nits, so...?

Oh, no, I agree 100% -- you have answered my questions... to the best of your ability.

It would seem, then, that the problem lies in your abilities.

This is nothing to be ashamed of; a wise man should be aware of his limitations.

 

[TLK Valentine]

@TLK Valentine

This is what I have gleaned from your post that I didn't consider utter nonsense, or is just picking nits from your post so far...

God preserves His Gospel message and the truth about the Trinity and the big picture of scripture no matter what, the fact that some men have created so many different denominations over things that oftentimes don't even have anything to do with that is because of them, and is not anyone else's problem, including God's, etc...

If God wished to say anything about the Trinity, he didn't include it in the Bible.

Sounds like you're in a severe backpedal -- you said that God preserved his words perfectly; now your saying He was just trying to get the general idea across...

Anyone can get the truth from a clear reading of scripture that they do on their own or all by themselves, regardless of what language or tongue they speak or whatever, and in that way, He has preserved it and preserved it perfectly, etc...

Give of take 700 languages and 45,000 denominations who all read it differently... when are you actually going to address what I said about communication?

And free will is a perspective or point of view, and we only appear to have it from a certain perspective or point of view due to what we don't know or are not knowing, and you can ask me more about that if you wish...

Seeing as how it would seem to be a waste of my time, I'll decline.

After all, either we have free will or we do not -- and I wouldn't expect a straight answer on any question.

And I told you the truth about the Angel in Revelation...

But you didn't even try to answer the question I asked -- was I not supposed to notice your attempt to sidestep it?

Anyway @TLK Valentine that's all I seemed to get from your post thus far, ask me more about it if you wish, ok...

God Bless!

Yes -- are you planning to connect any of this to the creation/evolution debate anytime soon, or are we completely off the rails on that front?

 

[Neogaia777]

Oh, no, I agree 100% -- you have answered my questions... to the best of your ability.

It would seem, then, that the problem lies in your abilities.

This is nothing to be ashamed of; a wise man should be aware of his limitations.

Since your probably not going to be satisfied no matter what, then it's becoming clear that no amount of ability, or energy, is going to be sufficient for you fully, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

If God wished to say anything about the Trinity, he didn't include it in the Bible.

Sounds like you're in a severe backpedal -- you said that God preserved his words perfectly; now your saying He was just trying to get the general idea across...



Give of take 700 languages and 45,000 denominations who all read it differently... when are you actually going to address what I said about communication?



Seeing as how it would seem to be a waste of my time, I'll decline.

After all, either we have free will or we do not -- and I wouldn't expect a straight answer on any question.



But you didn't even try to answer the question I asked -- was I not supposed to notice your attempt to sidestep it?



Yes -- are you planning to connect any of this to the creation/evolution debate anytime soon, or are we completely off the rails on that front?

The Truth about the true Trinity is in the Bible, etc... Some just have blinders on and cannot see it, etc...

Anyone can get the real truth that matters by reading the scriptures themselves and for themselves, and in that way, God has preserved it, etc...

And it is not a matter of communication, but lies in the errors of man due to having blinders on and their own arrogant interpretation, etc...

We do not technically have free will, etc...

God Bless!