lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
"The Bible was written for us, but not to us," to quote one biblical scholar.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.
1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.
I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.
I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.
So then, whats the point of the bible?
My point is that we can make the DNA connection with our ancestors because we are observed to have ancestors.DNA can also determine the common ancestor you and your 5th cousin share. Observing a birth of a child does not determine who the father is. If there is a dispute, you can use DNA.
Yes, there was.There was no 'first man'.
Total rubbish. Humans did not evolve form a population of apes.Evolution takes places in POPULATIONS, not in individuals. Another example that demonstrates that you don't know what evolution states.
Sure, but DNA tells us nothing about were the first man came from. You can only speculate.DNA evidence is more reliable than eye witness testimony. As has been shown by the many inmates who have later been released after the discovery of DNA and the advancements it's made.
Sure, why not.How do you know? Because the bible says so? That is circular reasoning and makes the claim easy to reject. Would you care to try again.
So we agree that scientific theories can be wrong. Great.The ability for science to change it's stance based on new evidence is a strength not a weakness. It cares about what is true and can admit when they are wrong.
You don’t see me accepting evolution theory, do you?Religion is the guilty party that denies facts until it's so overwhelming, they have to accept it.
Science only works when God does not intervene by miracles which alter the laws of physics.Like when Galileo was put on trial for heresy for proposing heliocentric theory but now it is accepted that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. The majority of Christians now accept the theory of evolution because the evidence is so overwhelming. Science wins because it works.
No it doesn’t.Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains those facts.
Germ theory is not saturated with a whole set of hypothetical assumptions and speculations.Do you also reject the germ theory of disease? It's a fact that germs cause disease. The germ theory of disease explains those facts.
Your rubber sheet explanation of gravity is complete nonsense.Gravity is a fact. The general theory of relativity explains those facts.
And evolution theory doesn’t care what the facts indicate.Evolution is indeed a fact. We can observe it in the nature and in the lab. Facts don't care what you believe.
The facts of evolution are what we presently observe to be occurring in nature. If it is not observed to be occurring in nature, it is not evolution, it is speculation.It's falsified by the many lines of study that demonstrate the facts of evolution.
Yes.That brings us back to the Gospels. They are written DECADES after the alleged events with no contemporary, independent, eyewitness writings to back up the claims in the gospels. The only way you should use the bible is if you go back to compare any contemporary, independent accounts. Can you provide just ONE source that is contemporary to the stories in the gospels? Yes or no?
No. The burden of proof belongs to God.This is a positive claim. The burden of proof belongs to you.
Historical evidence:What evidence do you have to support this claim?
It is not a bandwagon, it is an actual life experience. Every Christian experience the presence of God in their lives, even if you don’t.Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Also known as the bandwagon fallacy.
Yes you are indeed wrong.Demonstrably false.
You don’t, but we do.The authors of the gospels are not named. They are anonymous. We don't know who wrote them.
How would you know what they did not claim if you don’t even know who they were?They don't claim to be eye witnesses.
They were written by God through the human instruments.We know they were written DECADES after the alleged events.
Rubbish.They were also educated Greek writers. They were not Aramaic speaking peasants.
Jesus told him.Secondly, Paul admits to not being an eyewitness. He is writing earlier than the gospels, yet he knows nothing about the alleged life of Jesus. This is supposed to be after a somewhat recent event (20 years or so), yet nobody tells him about the life of Jesus.
Again, God is the author of scriptures. The humans were just the instruments God used to do the writing.So God decided that Jesus (himself) is not going to write anything down? There also will be no contemporary accounts. Instead it won't be written down until DECADES later? This is not a reliable way to get your word across to those who are skeptical. It makes it all the more obvious that this is a myth.
Nope.Because you don't care about what is likely true or not.
Nope.You'd rather believe what you want to be true.
I already told you that your myopic method can take a hikeIf you're so confident that what you believe is indeed true. Use the historical method and get back to me with what you find.
You have no reason to believe those miracles, but many of us do, and that is good enough for us. The truth doesn’t care whether or not you believe it.There may be some historical truths that you can pick out. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The miracle claims in the bible are extraordinary. This means you'll need some independent and contemporary accounts in order to confirm these claims. Otherwise you're just going in circles. "It says it in the bible, therefore it's true" and around and around you go.
We don’t see with our eyes, we see through our eyes, but we see with our brain. We form conclusions based on interpretations and not based on what we actually see. This is why scientists don’t always agree even though they see the same thing.A verse telling me to be intellectually dishonest, haha. I don't know how you can be comfortable accepting a verse that basically says "Don't believe things that you can see but believe things you can't see" That's a dangerous way of thinking and a good way to get things wrong.
No. It is human ego being expressed through human biases.So it's a conspiracy theory?
I am not referring to the rejected papers. I am referring to the papers that should be rejected but are accepted.Papers get rejected all the time. It is the job of the reviewer to be highly critical and to attempt to prove the research wrong. A study in 2012 showed that 80,000 papers submitted to several biology journals, 25% of them were rejected by the first journal they were submitted to.
No it isn’t.This is the same exact thing.
Nope.You are assuming your conclusion and then seeking out things that you think confirm your assumptions.
I don’t think I do. I am simply acknowledging that truth is not limited to science. You have chosen to bury your head in the sand of science. I have not.It is arrogant to think you have a monopoly on the truth.
Good for you.I prefer to be honest with myself and understand I could be wrong. I then follow the evidence to see what conclusions arise.
No thanks. I already saw the “evidence” along with all the assumptions and speculations required to make sense of it. Evolution theory is overwhelmingly speculative.The majority of Christians have no problem with evolution. Evolution is a fact. It's observed and been repeatedly tested. It's a fact. Would you like me to post some of the evidence?
I already did. This is not the first time I am debating re-creation theory here.You should open a thread and post your paper. I'm sure many here would enjoy reading it.
Nope. It is not a scientific theory. It is a Theo-scientific theory where the science must support the theology or the science must take a hike.Are you going to try to get it into the science classroom like creationism and intelligent design did?
Putting Gods' word to the test is the personal experience of all Christians, not just me.You commit two logical fallacies here.
1. Argument from personal experience
Putting God’s word to the test is popular with all Christians because it works for all.2. Argumentum ad populum
Now you are being ridiculous.My personal experience, and that of many others of being abducted by aliens proves that aliens exist, they visit Earth and abduct it's inhabitants.
Yes I do.See how ridiculous that type of argument is?
Yes I am. Debating with you is just going in circles. You just don’t get it.Are you dizzy from all the circles you've been going in?
My point is that we can make the DNA connection with our ancestors because we are observed to have ancestors.
“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground” – (Genesis 2:7).
You keep ignoring the historical evidence.
“From one man He (God) made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this…” – (Acts 17:26-27).
Total rubbish. Humans did not evolve form a population of apes.
You keep ignoring the evidence of human history and instead prefer to speculate on the DNA of apes.
Sure, but DNA tells us nothing about were the first man came from. You can only speculate.
One aspect of the scientific method is the predictive ability of a theory. The success of the prediction is an indication of the accuracy of the theory.
God’s word also makes predictions and the consistent success of those predictions, when God’s word is put to the test, is an indication of the accuracy of God’s word.
This is why billions of people live by God's word and stake their lives on it.
So we agree that scientific theories can be wrong. Great.
Then we can also agree that Evolution theory can be wrong, even if you presently have no reason to think it is.
Science only works when God does not intervene by miracles which alter the laws of physics.
Those same “majority of Christians” who accept evolution theory also accept the virgin birth and resurrection because they recognize that science does not always work.
A huge part of evolution theory is science fiction and not facts.
Germ theory is not saturated with a whole set of hypothetical assumptions and speculations.
According to your explanation, the earth is relying on gravity to create the gravity-dent, and then the gravity-dent becomes the earth’s gravity.
The facts of evolution are what we presently observe to be occurring in nature. If it is not observed to be occurring in nature
No. The burden of proof belongs to God.
Historical evidence:
“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – (Romans 1:20).
It is not a bandwagon, it is an actual life experience.
You don’t, but we do.
How would you know what they did not claim if you don’t even know who they were?
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” – (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
*As he (Paul) journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground...Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."* - (Acts 9:3-6).
Your problem is that you are reasoning like an atheist who continually ignores the historical evidence of Scripture.
Again, God is the author of scriptures. The humans were just the instruments God used to do the writing.
Because I know what is true.
I’d rather believe what I know to be true.
I already told you that your myopic method can take a hike
Jesus is the contemporary source.
I am referring to the papers that should be rejected but are accepted.
Now you are being ridiculous.
Yes I do.
It also demonstrates that we share a common Creator.Exactly. Studying the human genome demonstrates that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, along with every other living species on Earth.
Yes.So you're going to choose a claim that says we were poofed into existence by an invisible man over a natural phenomenon that we can observe?
Yes, I have Jesus.Going back in circles again huh? "It's true because the bible tells me it's true". Do you have an independent and contemporary account that agrees with the above verse? If not, that claim is easily dismissed. Can you demonstrate your claim to be true by using other sources? That's kind of how honest research is done.
Common Creator.
We have to add another one in there. Homo Naledi was discovered in 2013
Common Creator.Human and chimpanzee genomes are 98% similar.
No mental gymnastics. I am simply choosing not to cherry-pick the evidence like you are.Why do you have to do mental gymnastics to dance around that fact?
I have no reason to be terrified by mere speculations.Or do science. Genetics studies are crazy huh? It probably terrifies you. http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478
I will simply dismiss it as more nonsense.Good thing we have an excellent example of this thanks to Dr. Shubin and his team. They made an accurate prediction in regards to the transition between fish and tetrapod. (Predictions being: What layer of rock, where this rock is exposed and what features this species would have). Meet Tiktaalik Roseae: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
What kind of mental gymnastics will you do this time to avoid this evidence?
Prediction:What predictions can you make and what is the test you run for this prediction?
It is not Argumentum ad populum. It is an argument from human experience.Argumentum ad populum. You committed this fallacy in your last post. Why go back to it again?
You do not observe humans evolving from ape ancestors. That's speculation.Of course it could be wrong. I highly doubt it though. Considering we've directly observed it in nature and in the lab. Science is a self correcting process. It doesn't ignore new information because they want to hold onto a certain belief. That would be religion. Science takes the intellectual honest road.
Have you directly observed humans evolving from ape ancestors ? Or did you just read about that in a book and accept that it was true without any skepticism?Have you directly observed the laws of physics being suspended? Or did you just read about them in a book and accept that it was true without any skepticism?
Argumentum ad populum.I would have a disagreement with them over the miraculous claims. So what? The point was that people that deny evolution are in the minority.
Evolution theory is demonstrable false.Evolution is demonstrably true.
Nope.An observable fact in nature and in the lab is science fiction?
Nope.Experimentation that demonstrates evolution is science fiction?
Possibly. A scientific prediction is only a measurement.The accurate predictions the theory makes is science fiction?
Nope.This is nothing more then you plugging your ears and closing your eyes going "lalalalalala i can't hear you"
Nope.Translation "Germ theory of disease does not threaten my fundamentalist beliefs,therefore I can accept it"
Not only wrong, but his rubber-sheet theory is also stupid.EINSTEIN WAS WRONG!?
Not with peer-review being so bias.Dude, totally write that paper right now! Do you know how rich and famous you'd be!?!?!?!
You mentioned gravity in relation to Einstein's theory of relativity. I am simply responding to your post:No where in my post did I explain gravity. The rest of this is a strawman. If you want to argue against the theory of general relativity, open a new thread.
If you don't want to talk about Einstein's theory of gravity, then don't bring it up.Gravity is a fact. The general theory of relativity explains those facts.
We do not observe humans evolving from ape ancestors.We do observe it in nature.
Now you are being silly again.You can do experiments yourself.
Will I observe the student evolving from an ape ancestor?Go down to a university and observe a first year biology student in a lab class.
Nope.Moving the goal posts. You're making the positive claim. The burden belongs to you.
The Bible is a record of history. History is evidence.The bible is the claim not the evidence. Try again.
You would have a point if I was the only person who share the experience. Just because you do not share an experience does not mean it is not real.Argument from personal experience is also a logical fallacy. I have no way of verifying what it was you experienced just like you have no way of verifying my experience of being abducted by aliens. You have no reason to believe my claim to be accurate, and I don't have a reason to believe yours. Personal experience is not evidence.
Doveaman.Cite one biblical scholar who claims to know the authors of the Gospels.
Or maybe you are reading the wrong bible.Why would it matter if I know who wrote it or not? They don't make a single claim throughout the entire gospels that they were witnesses. It sounds like you need to go read your bible again.....or from the sounds of it read it for the first time.
The Bible is true because of its predictive power. It is never wrong.Back to "it's true because it says it's true" circular argument.
Nope.You know that the Koran states that it is an inspiration from God too, right? The same Abrahamic God you believe in. So by your reasoning, the Koran is the truth as well.
Yes.So you will deny observable science but you have no problem believing someone had a vision?
Because you were not being serious, you were being silly.Why won't you believe my alien abduction story!?!?!?!?!
I already gave one -- Jesus.I'm still waiting on you to provide an independent and contemporary source for the claims made in the bible, specifically the Gospels.
Nope. Humans are indeed instruments of God.Special pleading.
The creation narrative was not a mistake. It was confirmed thousands of years later by Jesus Himself:You have to concede that men are fallible and that they could easily have made mistakes when writing what they thought to be true.
The Bible is a record of history, and history is evidence.It's the height of arrogance to claim you KNOW what is true and have a monopoly on it. If you know, then demonstrate that your claims are accurate. You have failed to do so. Citing bible verses, which have been explained to you are the claim and not evidence is not impressive.
The definition of myopic is also short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness, both of which you are.The definition of myopic is lacking of intellectual insight. Aren't you the one who only wants to ramble off bible verses and call it true? Use the historic method as well.....unless you're afraid of what you'll find or not find. Which I suspect you are.
Jesus inspired what was written, and He is alive and present today. It is not my fault that you cannot find Him. That's your fault.Jesus never wrote anything down, therefore he is not a source but rather just apart of the story. What are your contemporary and independent sources that can confirm these stories?
Any paper on the Big Bang.Care to cite a scientific peer reviewed paper that you feel should have been rejected? Be sure to explain in detail why it should have been rejected.
My personal experience of God is real, a personal experience that is also shared by many others.I know. That's the point I was making. I asked if you agreed how ridiculous that "personal experience" argument was and you responded with:
Because you were being silly, and I was not.I'm glad you can see how absurd arguing from personal experience is and calling it evidence. Why do you do it then? What makes your claim any less absurd than mine?
It also demonstrates that we share a common Creator.
Yes, I have Jesus.
God re-created humans and chimps from the same DNA.
I have no reason to be terrified by mere speculations.
I will simply dismiss it as more nonsense.
Prediction:
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Test:
JonFromMinnesota
Humans actually experience the presence of God in their lives, even if you don't, and we are able to share our experiences with each other to verify that we are experiencing the same thing.
You do not observe humans evolving from ape ancestors. That's speculation.
Have you directly observed humans evolving from ape ancestors?
All the pictures and links you are posting on evolution theory are accepted by you because of what you read in a book on the subject.
Possibly. A scientific prediction is only a measurement.
The success of the prediction is an indication of the accuracy of the theory.
I accept Germ theory because it is good for my health. Evolution theory does nothing for me.
We do not observe humans evolving from ape ancestors.
Now you are being silly again.
Will I observe the student evolving from an ape ancestor?
The burden belongs to God: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God..." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).
You would have a point if I was the only person who share the experience. Just because you do not share an experience does not mean it is not real.
Doveaman.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, and we have seen His glory, the glory of as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." -- (John 1:1-14).
Sounds like witnesses to me.
The Bible is true because of its predictive power. It is never wrong.
Nope.
A contemporary source of history would be a record written during the same time the stories of the gospels were taking place. You have failed to provide one and instead resort to dishonest deflecting. If you can't name one just say you don't know instead of doing gymnastics. It's already been explained to you that bible verses will NOT be accepted unless you can provide other sources.I already gave one -- Jesus.
The definition of myopic is also short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness, both of which you are.
My personal experience of God is real, a personal experience that is also shared by many others.
Yours was not real. You were just being silly.
If it contradicts the historical evidence, it is nonsense.Have your DNA analyzed. If you're Caucasian, you likely have up to 2% Homo Neanderthalenis DNA. But with how intellectually dishonest you are, you'd probably dismiss that as nonsense.
If it contradicts the historical evidence, it is nonsense.
I am of the view that reality is far more than just the visible and material.
Your view of reality is shaped by your reliance on the scientific evidence explained in science papers.
My view of reality is shaped by my reliance on the historical evidence explained in the papers of Scripture.
According to the historical evidence, Adam and Eve were the original ancestors of all humans existing today
Adam is the re-creation of an ape-like species into the form of a Man -- Re-creation with modification.
The only way to deny re-creation with modification is to ignore the historical evidence, and you have not given me a single reason to do that.
If a myopic view of reality works for you, great!There are several different lines of evidence that all come to the same conclusion in regards to evolution.
Genesis 1 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each day of creation week.I can use your bible to falsify your idea.
Which account of Genesis do you subscribe to? The one where man was made before the animals or after the animals?
In Genesis 1:25-27 animals are made first and then man. But in Genesis 2:7 man is made first and then in verses 18-22, animals are made. So in order for you to try to makes sense of this "recreation with modification" you'd have to subscribe to Genesis 1 and concede that Genesis 2 is a contradiction. So which one is it Doveman? Is Genesis 1 correct and Genesis 2 wrong?
I don't agree with you Hoghead1. You automatically assume that Scripture isn't inerrant.I don't agree with you Doveman. You automatically assume that Scripture is inerrant.
See above.Now, I submit that when you carefully examine the hared evidence, the texts, that this theory fails, as there are any one of a number of major contradictions in Scripture. A prime example, as noted above, is the fact that Genesis provides two contradictory chronologies and therefore is an incoherent account. All attempts to reconcile these contradictions have failed.
If it contradicts the historical evidence, it is nonsense.
You are of the view that reality is nothing more than the visible and material.
I am of the view that reality is far more than just the visible and material.
The history recorded in the books is evidence.Stories in books are not evidence.
It has been demonstrated, but:Then demonstrate it.
Problem for whom?P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.
AV1611VET said:I think we're talking two completely different paradigms here.
Do you know the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia?
And if so, can you take Genesis 1 ... and Genesis 1 alone ... and separate the creation events into two lists:
One list marked EX NIHILO and the other list marked EX MATERIA?
(Note: You don't have to believe it; I'm just asking if you can do it.)
The history recorded in the books is evidence.
It has been demonstrated, but:
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." -- (1 Corinthians 2:14).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?