Taking Questions on the Creation

[Nathan Poe]

Yes but according to some, God "grabbed" Paul's hand and directed him what to write word for word. dot for dot, tittle for tittle.

Well, I certainly can't be held accountable for the theological idiocy of others.

 

[Split Rock]

Death is a very integral part of evolution --- and God calls death His "enemy."

Death is a very intergral part of falling from a height -- and God calls death his enemy. Therefore, gravity is a LIE from SATAN!

 

[Assyrian]

Death is a very intergral part of falling from a height -- and God calls death his enemy. Therefore, gravity is a LIE from SATAN!

Almost...

Luke 4:9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,
10 for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,'
11 and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"
12 And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Not dying when you fall from a height is the lie from Satan.

 

[paug]

Almost...

Luke 4:9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,
10 for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,'
11 and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"
12 And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Not dying when you fall from a height is the lie from Satan.

They sure covered a lot of bases with that little sentence.

 

[Tomk80]

Do you never read anyone's posts? Honestly, I don't know why people like myself even bother to talk to you?

AV does read others posts, he just lies about them. I told him once I could demonstrate that earth has a history. He told me not to bother, he wasn't interested. Few days later he turned around and started proclaiming that noone could demonstrate to him that earth has a history. I told him that he stop lying and asked him again whether he would put in some effort if I explained to him why we can demonstrate that the earth has a history. Again he told me he wasn't interested.

So there you have the mindset of AV. For me, this was the point where I considered the dishonesty of his attitude proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Breckmin]

Hmmmm, so you accept the notions of common ancestry and evolution for all species (us humans included) then, or not?

Every time I type up a big long explanation here, I lose it somehow
so I guess I will just have to respond with "not."

2nd question, what are your views on human chromosome 2 fusion and ERV's?

My long 3 page endless litany on everything from HGP and PCR in the 90's
and Darwinian interpretations being the only guiding force was just lost
once again when I clicked on a different window.

To summarize I am not aware of any find where we have been able to
observe the fusion of two chromosome feet to form one larger chromosome. Telomere to Telomere fusion of two ancestral apes
(chromosomes from them) may look like the right fit to a puzzle, but
"commonalities do not equal relatedness" UNLESS that relatedness
is observed within species, subspecies, breeds (and in some rare
cases of engineering with plants -genera)

(now luckily I saved the small above, but I just lost a whole
section comparing this to pharyngeal gill slits)

Maybe I am trying to do too many things at once and I keep
losing what I've typed here and I now feel like an idiot.

I would love to spend (more) time on this, because believe me, I have
a lot more to say. But it doesn't really matter whether you compare
rats to mice. bears to dogs. or chimpanzees to humans to try and
make your induction (and BTW, rats and mice are a possibility with
many creationists)just think of the difference that 1% or more makes.

IOW, you can compare orthologous proteins and nucleotide alignments
all you want, but just ask yourself "how many millions and millions of
nucleotides are there? I understand about finding the uniqueness
of finding chromosomes that appear as though they could fuse
together as 2A and 2B. But what evidence do we have to support
that this actually occurs?

Let me post this little bit and I'll talk about ERV's.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

RE: ERV

Before I give my opinion on this, what exactly is the question?

I assume this is also related to apes and humans having a common ancestor
because of ERV and tRNA that changed the DNA of the host that ends up in
germline cells, but what exactly is the question? I am quite interested.

~Michael
Creationists spend most of their time.....

studying evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

RE: ERV

Before I give my opinion on this, what exactly is the question?

I assume this is also related to apes and humans having a common ancestor
because of ERV and tRNA that changed the DNA of the host that ends up in
germline cells, but what exactly is the question? I am quite interested.

~Michael
Creationists spend most of their time.....

studying evolution.

Couldn't we better take this to another thread? Given that in this thread AV was supposed to give "answers" to questions people had about his views?

Although I don't think the answers amount to much more than the answers a classmate of mine once gave on a french exam: "see book".

 

[Breckmin]

Death is a very integral part of evolution --- and God calls death His "enemy."

Well, my big long post on why it is o.k. to talk about "speciation" just
went somewhere, but not here...

To summarize, it is not so much the colloquialism or the scientific
nomenclature that is used, but rather the meaning behind it.

You just typed the English word "evolution" and you may even use
it someday to explain a technology or a language. It is important
to differentiate between a Darwin, or a Wallace, or a Huxley inter-
pretation of evolutionary biology, and a Creationist's view of micro
evolution or "speciation."

When we are talking about what is observed, we are talking about
the exact same processes. We just have different nomenclatures
to identify them with which lead to different interpretations based
on different sets of assumptions.

Perhaps I do not understand the point you are making about
death and evolution. I believe it is important to differentiate
to these individuals the difference between "observed evolution"
from their standpoint, and Darwinian evolutionary biology from
my standpoint.

I hope that you can see that I am not what you refer to as
an evolutionist. I am a creationist who observes common
ancestry within genera and "natural" selection as a part of
God's creation. Perhaps I am tripping you up by using the
phrase "natural selection." Trust me, I am a creationist.

~Michael

 

[AV1611VET]

Couldn't we better take this to another thread? Given that in this thread AV was supposed to give "answers" to questions people had about his views?

Thank you, Tom.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Death is a very integral part of evolution --- and God calls death His "enemy."

Please explain, in your own words, why you think death must be an integral part of evolution.

Besides, millions of organisms die each day without God taking any action, so why should he suddenly be concerned about it?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't get offended at name calling anyway. I usually have fun with
it and explain that it is nothing more than the product of being lazy
due to frustration. "A lazy mind trying to express itself."

Breckmin, please before you intimate that you may think my responses to AV are the product of a "lazy mind", do me the honor of at least looking back through my posts going back over a year now.

I will assume in that you are still on this line of reasoning that you haven't yet done your homework. That is ok. It is the actions of a "lazy mind". But please don't assume that you know the "history" of this thread and in totality the forum itself.

I will grant you I've lost all patience and most of my initial respect for AV1611VET but that is precisely because he has required that course of action.

You see, Breckmin, AV1611VET prides himself on his Biblical knowledge and often claims to "eat atheists for breakfast" and all manner of "bluster and bluff". He makes demonstrably false claims and when he is "corrected" he simply ignores it.

AV1611VET is a pharisee. He has read the KJV so closely he's seen every word but as we all know when we learn to read, often times just knowing what words are in the sentence does not equal the "meaning".

AV treats others stances as beneath consideration, while many of us go some extra limit to grant some of his points, even if we disagree with him. But you'll never see AV admit that "perhaps ebed could mean "slave" as was common among the Hebrews." This even after we all grant that indeed ebed could also mean "servant" but the context of the bible indicates something less pleasant than mere "hired servant". But no, AV will merely accuse us all of not understanding theology.

You see, AV confuses his "feelings" about what the Bible says with Absolute Truth. That frustrates people like me. I'm a scientist. My greatest fear is that I will make a mistake in presenting information or miss some subtelty. That is not a problem AV suffers from. He knows absolute truth and will gladly tell you absolute truth. Your points (if they happen to disagree with him) will be deemed something he can safely ignore.

So, by doing so, he has violated Luke 6:31. He's surely familiar with the words of his lord and savior, but I wonder if he's merely familiar with the "words" and missed the meaning.

In these discussions, AV's point, if you are following along, is that he will glady present information to you if you are willing to allow him to control exactly where the information comes from and if you agree with his "interpretation" of that information.

So hopefully you'll go do your homework and get the background. I assure you most of us scientists on this board, both atheist and christian, who disagree with AV aren't "lazy minds". Most of us know much more about both the larger picture of religion, Christianity, logic and science than AV.

That isn't to say AV's ignorance is bad. That is hardly the point. We are all ignorant of different things. I've even changed my debate strategy in regards to one of the Jesus Eschatologies based on something I learned from AV. But I sincerely doubt there has been an equal response from AV. It would indicate that his knowledge isn't of "absolute truth". That cannot stand.

The thing that annoys all of the folks who debate AV is that he seems to love his ignorance. That is his pride and joy, apparently. It is frustrating and what has resulted in my recent annoyance posts to him.

I've spent over a year doing this, going 'round and 'round with AV. It is kind of fun, but it's also kind of like picking on the "challenged". And that does sort of bother me.

I just find
what is being said about him and "his position" difficult to believe since
there is so much evidence which can be "interpreted" to support the
Genesis account, that he would deny these scientific evidences as

His "position" is not one of evidence. That's the point. He isn't interested in "evidence". He's claimed as much. So what stance would you take in regards to AV?

(Oh, and if you can please provide such evidence for literal genesis, please do so, but be careful of the PRATT list.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Two things worth mentioning here:

But you'll never see AV admit that "perhaps ebed could mean "slave" as was common among the Hebrews."

Where do I draw the line with this baloney? If I say ebed means "slave":

• Did God talk to Job about the Hippopotamus and the Crocodile?
• Did Moses cross the Sea of Reeds?
• Was the Tabernacle made of porpoise skins?
• Was Jesus born of [just] a young woman?
• Was the Babe in the manger visited by Magi, not Wise Men?
• Should we celebrate Easter as Ishtar?

What gives us the right to compromise God's words?

I've even changed my debate strategy in regards to one of the Jesus Eschatologies based on something I learned from AV. But I sincerely doubt there has been an equal response from AV.

I had to change my thinking as well --- as when I had to accept Abiogenesis as being apart from Evolution.

 

[Bombila]

Was the Tabernacle made of porpoise skins? - AV

I appear to have missed this one. What was the argument there, may I ask?

Never mind. A brief search reveals AV's favourite English translation has determined that the word tachash means badger, while others argue for porpoise, dugong, seal or possibly even okapi.

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BADGER/

 

[thaumaturgy]

Two things worth mentioning here:Where do I draw the line with this baloney? If I say ebed means "slave":

I won't derail this thread with another discussion of slavery, but your question reveals your "motives". Your motives are to control the discussion. You can never grant another's point even when the point is technically valid.

That makes you a "bad debator". The fact that you've been shown from the Blue Letter Bible (Strong's Concordance) that the word did commonly mean "slave" as well as "servant", yet you never grant the point even technically indicates to me you are being somewhat dishonest in the debate. (And believe me I do not use that word lightly).

I don't know why your faith allows this semi-dishonesty and obtuseness, but it does, and it makes me thankful I know many real Christians apart from you and your tiny minority version of the faith.

• Did God talk to Job about the Hippopotamus and the Crocodile?
• Did Moses cross the Sea of Reeds?
• Was the Tabernacle made of porpoise skins?
• Was Jesus born of [just] a young woman?
• Was the Babe in the manger visited by Magi, not Wise Men?
• Should we celebrate Easter as Ishtar?

Who cares? Why does it so threaten you that the reference in Job might be a hippo? Why does it matter if Moses parted the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds?

Is your faith so weak and childish that metaphor, or linguistic subtleties or -gasp- errors in translation can't be allowed??

Don't worry, I know it is. Yours is the faith of a child. A scare little boy hiding under the covers from monsters. In reality you are ill equipped to handle the real world so you blithely tell physical evidence to "take a hike", you proclaim loudly like a toddler on the playfield you will "answer questions" but in reality you just want to spout your feelings

That's fine. You are not alone. We all get scared at times by the vastness of the world around us. But most of us don't have the luxury to deny the physical world as you appear.

Further, most of us don't have the luxury to deny the people we talk to when in discussions.

What gives us the right to compromise God's words?

Do you ever wonder why God gave you a brain? Do you? Do you think your brain is a "lying machine from Satan"?

Because you actively treat common sense and intelligence like it is an abomination. THAT is why I dislike you and your posts. THAT is why I think your comments are actually worse than useless.

If I for one second thought you were actually willing to use this big brain you have with the IQ>170 and the chess playing skills, I'd be glad to read your stuff as more than just "laughable".

I can read a lot of stuff about religion, but the difference is, your stuff about religion I find meaningless because you seem to hate with an undying passion the use of the mind.

I had to change my thinking as well --- as when I had to accept Abiogenesis as being apart from Evolution.

Good for you. Bravo. I stand corrected. I must bookmark this so that I won't do the AV thing and continue making a claim after being corrected on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Never mind. A brief search reveals AV's favourite English translation...

Not that it would make a difference to you, Bombila, or even if you care; but let me clue you in on a little technicality:

One of the first things you learn when you study to be a KJVO, is that the King James Bible is not your favorite Bible --- It is your only Bible.

Thus the O in KJVO.

 

[Bombila]

Not that it would make a difference to you, Bombila, or even if you care; but let me clue you in on a little technicality:

One of the first things you learn when you study to be a KJVO, is that the King James Bible is not your favorite Bible --- It is your only Bible.

Thus the O in KJVO.

AV, of all your idiosyncrasies, this fixation on one single English translation of the Bible strikes me as the most bizarre. I can understand, if not agree with, Biblical literalism. I can understand, if not agree with, the desire to attempt to correlate reality with that literalism by coming up with embedded age. But attributing divine inspiration to one translation only? How could you ever tell?

And no, it doesn't make a difference to me, nor do I care which translation anyone uses, except and only except when it comes to what certainly looks to me like attempts to clean up the language of the Bible and the realities of life in that time to make it politically correct for semi-modern Christians like yourself. Which is what that whole slavery argument was about (and no, I don't want to get back into that).

And I care about that because it is part and parcel of the culture we live with today, and have lived with for a long time, and therefore has consequences for real live people. If certain Christians cannot manage to confront their own scriptures with eyes wide open, what other things may they turn their eyes from?

 

[AV1611VET]

But attributing divine inspiration to one translation only? How could you ever tell?

I don't attribute divine inspiration to any translation.

Again, this is a technicality --- but inspiration has nothing to do with the translations.

Inspiration dealt with how God's Words were put into writing, and there were only 40 men inspired to do so.

Translation deals with how those writings were preserved and transmitted to us in our language.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Not that it would make a difference to you, Bombila, or even if you care; but let me clue you in on a little technicality:

One of the first things you learn when you study to be a KJVO, is that the King James Bible is not your favorite Bible --- It is your only Bible.

Thus the O in KJVO.

AV, you are free to believe as you wish. However, again, what the outsider sees is a wholly arbitrary and unjustified unilateral attempt to control the conversation.

As KJVOnlyist what I see is that you and your unique minority group within a sect within the church have done is to "standardize" the discussion by ignoring and denying all the history that went into it.

But, even as a KJV Onlyist you must agree that even the word "servant" can be applied to a "slave".

It is a simple logic game one learns in philosophy 1 class.

All dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs.

All slaves are servants, not all servants are slaves.

Even as KJV Onlyist you must acquiesce that certain words can mean things other than what you wish them to mean.

AGain, the desire here not to derail the thread but to hopefully get you to admit that when someone disagrees with your unique minority interpretation of the Bible does not mean they are ipso facto "technically incorrect".

Further, when one realizes that the KJV comes from earlier versions of the Bible means you either have to face up to the original language used by the KJV "translators" and their prior reference, or you must do as you appear to do: DENY THE OTHER DATA which, in some cases, would lead one to believe that alternative interpretations can be technically correct.

You just don't agree with them.

The whole "almah" and "ebed" discussion is what happens then. But note how you approach the discussion. It's YOUR WAY or the HIGHWAY.

That isn't a "discussion", AV, that's a COMMAND FROM AV.

So far the only reason we, who are NOT you, are left with as to why your point is in any way "compelling" is because AV HAS DECREED IT TO BE SO!

Let it be written, let it be done. As pharoah said in the Cecil B. Demilles version of the Ten Commandments.

Sorry, but I have my serious doubts you are God, and I even have doubts you have God's full intent. I should wonder why God would talk to you. He gave you a "brain" and you seem to be hard at work denying that gift. So why should I believe he is communicating special knowledge to you?

Again, you are free to believe as you wish. But this is what an outsider sees. When you post an OP in which you offer "answers" you may as well have saved the electrons. There are no "answers" forthcoming from you. Even you said they would be no more than your opinion. And that they are.

So why should anyone care what your opinion is?

Why should anyone care what MY opinion is? That's why it's important that the EVIDENCE NOT TAKE A HIKE.

That's how we tell whose opinion has even a mustard seed's worth of value. Which lines up with the evidence and which is just another ex cathedra command.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't attribute divine inspiration to any translation.

But you take one translation as being superior. As I recall once you claimed that if something disagreed with the KJV it was wrong? Did that apply to earlier translations upon which the KJV relied in large part?

Again, this is a technicality --- but inspiration has nothing to do with the translations.

Then how do you know that ebed and almah mean the words you claim them to mean when Strong's Concordance indicate that they have other meanings that may contradict your interpretation? What is the "cutoff" or metric by which you measure the meaning?

Inspiration dealt with how God's Words were put into writing, and there were only 40 men inspired to do so.

Can you name them? Can you then provide proof that they were the ones who penned the various books you attribute to them? Is this another case where "evidence can take a hike", you just take someone's word for it? Who, praytell, told you that Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew? Or that Mark wrote Mark? Why do you believe them?

What compels you to believe the authors of anonymous books are who someone else told you were the authors?

Translation deals with how those writings were preserved and transmitted to us in our language.

Translation is a process and while we are aware that you wish to ignore the implications, a process that acts on a given set of words can change those words and alter their meaning.

The Comma Johanneum is a prime example. It is in your KJV, but is it in the texts before the Textus Receptus? It is somewhat important to know where a "concept" comes from, where the literal words themselves come from.

You are obviously familiar with the famous Comma, but I suspect you'd claim the earlier manuscripts which pre-dated even the TR were somehow incorrect whereas a later translation is superior.

Now, of course, you could claim the "version" that was finally produced after Erasmus refused to put it in until he was shown a version with it, was somehow superior to all the other manuscripts which Erasmus had but which failed to have the comma. But of course, that is not the kind of "evidence" one would find as compelling. It smacks of "expedience" when the Church demanded it and finally were able to "make one appear" for Erasmus.

So it winds up in your KJV. But was it originally pennedy by one of your "famous 40"? How do you know?

I suspect it doesn't really matter to you. It's there now, and that's really all the matters. KJVO is a nice, clean way to wash your hands of worry and consideration.

KJVO is yet another way to ignore the evidence, or even the questions around the evidence. Control the conversation and move ahead without question.

It is a calming way to live I suspect, but does it get you closer to the TRUTH or just closer to YOUR INTERPRETATION?