The Demise of Evolution

[Speedwell]

The whole approach is weird.

If prescience and fulfilled prophecy prove the Bible to be objectively true then one need not have faith that it is the inspired word of God, one is compelled to accept it. And if acceptance of the Bible as the word of God is compulsory on the basis of its demonstrated objective truth, then one need not have faith in Christ, but merely the acceptance of objectively demonstrated truth. No faith required.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

on 3rd point you made, you are saying that the Bible should have used the word sphere instead ad of circle. I don't think we can insist how people used words that way we want. As well, some Bible translations today say circle, some say sphere, but both words imply the earth is round, in contrast to how people back then thought the earth was flat

Your Point 1... Interpreting old text in modern term is not new or wrong -- if we keep the original context of old text Then what do u think the old original text was saying by the word sphere or circle? Point 2 was related to point 1 so need to clarify point 1..

Would you care to address the points I made before raising new ones? That's how debates are supposed to work.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Would you care to address the points I made before raising new ones? That's how debates are supposed to work.

@roman2819 I'll take your liking of this post but no substantive response to mean you have no intention of addressing the points I raised.

 

[roman2819]

Would you care to address the points I made before raising new ones? That's how debates are supposed to work.

Think I "like" your post by mistake, sorry. I answer your post mostly in #778 but omit to mention something:

Regarding "... Genesis is a relative latecomer to the party and was written quite a while after other OT books, so cannot have been written by Moses or anyone even vaguely close to the event"

This is first time I ever heard that Genesis is written later than NT. If so, scholars would have pointed that out ages ago. The Pentateuch (including Genesis) and parts of the the OT was already written and distributed in the region before Jesus' time, before NT letters were written. If there is a new claim about Genesis, then its reliability is in question; these days, anyone will make any claim or theories superficially.

 

[roman2819]

@roman2819 I'll take your liking of this post but no substantive response to mean you have no intention of addressing the points I raised.

Think I "like" your post by mistake, sorry. I answer your post in #778 mostly but omit to mention something:

Regarding "... Genesis is a relative latecomer to the party and was written quite a while after other OT books, so cannot have been written by Moses or anyone even vaguely close to the event"

The OT was already written and distributed in the region before Jesus' time, before NT letters were written. The Pentateuch was even translated into Greek, the translation was called Septuagint.

Back then, the Jews were very very serious about writing, they kept records seriously. They saw themselves as an exclusive people of God, they had zero intention to convert pagans to believers, and as such, did not fabricate accounts to deceive people in their times or 1000 years later.

 

[roman2819]

@Bungle_Bear commented that my post about the Bible should be in apologetics. I understand that this ttread is about Evolution, and do not wish to digress from it. The reason for using a previous post about the Bible was to explain to someone who feel that Bible isn't reliable, or something to this effect, and I had to use an elaborate post ie it would be meaningless if I just say that Bible is true, isn't? That would only invite questions like could I substantiate my claims.

I wouldn't want to change the discussion from evolution to truths about the bible so I will only answer minimally. Most of what I want to say is in post.#775. I wouldn't want to add more about evidence in the bible or about the Bible, but i will answer some questions briefly.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Think I "like" your post by mistake, sorry. I answer your post mostly in #778 but omit to mention something:

That post does not address the points I raised, it ignores them and raises new assertions.

Regarding "... Genesis is a relative latecomer to the party and was written quite a while after other OT books, so cannot have been written by Moses or anyone even vaguely close to the event"

This is first time I ever heard that Genesis is written later than NT. If so, scholars would have pointed that out ages ago. The Pentateuch (including Genesis) and parts of the the OT was already written and distributed in the region before Jesus' time, before NT letters were written. If there is a new claim about Genesis, then its reliability is in question; these days, anyone will make any claim or theories superficially.

Where did I, or anyone other than you, claim Genesis was written after NT? Perhaps you should do as I asked last time and address the points I actually raised, not points I didn't?

 

[roman2819]

Where did I, or anyone other than you, claim Genesis was written after NT? Perhaps you should do as I asked last time and address the points I actually raised, not points I didn't?

Regarding allegation of Genesis being written late, and not written by Moses or people of his time -- I have never heard about this. If it was true, research scholars (Christians or secular) would have said it much earlier.

We cannot rule out that some people are making new theories and new hypothesis to distort the truths. Which you believe the new theories more than those made more than 80 or 100 years ago?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Regarding allegation of Genesis being written late, and not written by Moses or people of his time -- I have never heard about this. If it was true, research scholars (Christians or secular) would have said it much earlier.

We cannot rule out that some people are making new theories and new hypothesis to distort the truths. Which you believe the new theories more than those made more than 80 or 100 years ago?

It's not a new idea. Scholars have known the probable dates of composition of OT books for decades. You really need to do your homework before pontificating on subjects you obviously know little about.

 

[roman2819]

It's not a new idea. Scholars have known the probable dates of composition of OT books for decades. You really need to do your homework before pontificating on subjects you obviously know little about.

What is your claim - - all scholars OR most scholars OR a few scholars believe that Genesis was written
after many other OT books?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you saying that all scholars OR most scholars OR a few scholars say that Genesis was written
after many other OT books?

Have you done your homework? Even a quick google search? The answer is pretty much all scholars say Genesis was written after some other OT books. They also say it was written at a different time to the other Mosaic books. This has been common knowledge for over 100 years.

 

[roman2819]

Have you done your homework? Even a quick google search? The answer is pretty much all scholars say Genesis was written after some other OT books. They also say it was written at a different time to the other Mosaic books. This has been common knowledge for over 100 years.

LOL. What a frog-in-the-well answer.
I know for sure it is not true that most scholars believe the way you claim.

But more telling is the basis of your claim -- google and Internet ! You just expose that you know next to nothing.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL. What a-frog-in-the-well answer.
I know for sure it is not true that most scholars believe the way you claim.

How do you know that?

 

[roman2819]

How do you know that?

Shall we give @Bungle_Bear a chance to explain why ' In Google he trust'? Perhaps he did read some books to back up his claim, but forgot to say that in his post. Let him share his knowledge -- or lack of -- first.

Seriously would you say that google and internet is your main source of knowledge?

 

[Speedwell]

Shall we give @Bungle_Bear a chance to explain why ' In Google he trust'? Perhaps he did read some books to back up his claim, but forgot to say that in his post. Let him share his knowledge -- or lack of -- first.

Seriously would you say that google and internet is your main source of knowledge?

No, I'm too old-fashioned for that. The internet and google are fun, and satisfactory for certain kinds of searches, but for Bible scholarship it is best to read the works of the Bible scholars themselves. But in this case I think Bungle Bear is correct. Taking Christendom as a whole, your view of scripture is distinctly one of a minority, being restricted largely to conservative Evangelical Protestants.

 

[roman2819]

No, I'm too old-fashioned for that. The internet and google are fun, and satisfactory for certain kinds of searches, but for Bible scholarship it is best to read the works of the Bible scholars themselves. But in this case I think Bungle Bear is correct. Taking Christendom as a whole, your view of scripture is distinctly one of a minority, being restricted largely to conservative Evangelical Protestants.

Yes, after you developed a knowledge base from reading books etc, you use the Internet as a supplementary. Only a naive person think that google is god and swallow every dose he gets from there.

The conservative, evangelical protestants are not minority. There are the majority in Asia and Singapore. I went to university and churchss in Canada, and there are just as many conservatives as liberals -- likewise in USA. I believe many churches in Africa are conservative too. Over the years, I know from Bible courses, books and bible commentaries, that many scholars believe that Moses is the main author of pentateuch including Genesis -- and these scholars are from America and Europe. I did attend secular religious class at university which said the same.

I wouldn't mind hearing that some scholars believe otherwise. But to say that 'pretty much all scholars' believe genesis was written later is certainly not true. Sure we are all entitled to our belief, but @Bungle_Bear have little tolerance for different opinions.

 

[Speedwell]

e.

The conservative, evangelical protestants are not minority.

Not all Protestants are conservative (or "Fundamentalist") Evangelicals, and Protestants generally are outnumbered by Traditional Christians--Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

There are the majority in Asia and Singapore. I went to university and churchss in Canada, and there are just as many conservatives as liberals -- likewise in USA.

In the US, Fundamentalists amount to about 35% of the Christian population.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. What a frog-in-the-well answer.
I know for sure it is not true that most scholars believe the way you claim.

But more telling is the basis of your claim -- google and Internet ! You just expose that you know next to nothing.

You are probably reading the works of Christian apologists and not the works of scholars. Apologists are not biblical scholars. They are only interested in defending their own beliefs and do not want to learn what actually happened.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

LOL. What a frog-in-the-well answer.
I know for sure it is not true that most scholars believe the way you claim.

But more telling is the basis of your claim -- google and Internet ! You just expose that you know next to nothing.

Once again you're responding to things I didn't say. Do you ever take to time to understand what others write, or is knee-jerk reaction as far as your thinking ever goes?

I asked if you'd done any research, even something as simple as a google search. Your reaction was "Oh, so you rely on the internet for your knowledge". Firstly, you avoided answering the question I asked, and secondly you jumped to a baseless conclusion.

You also amusingly assert "I know for sure" that Bungle_Bear is wrong. OK, demonstrate that claim to be true. Present the evidence that most scholars do not accept that Genesis was written later than, say, Hosea, Micah, Parts of Isaiah and parts of Deuteronomy. That's an incomplete list, but over to you to demonstrate that my claim is incorrect.

I'll accept your apology when you have done your research (you may use any source you feel comfortable with) and finally realise you know very little about this subject.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I wouldn't mind hearing that some scholars believe otherwise. But to say that 'pretty much all scholars' believe genesis was written later is certainly not true.

You're in for a nasty surprise when you do your homework. Humble pie for dinner.

Sure we are all entitled to our belief, but @Bungle_Bear have little tolerance for different opinions.

I have a great deal of time and respect for different opinions. What I don't appreciate is ignorant fundamentalists pretending they know a lot about subjects they clearly know next to nothing about.