Who is Mr Darwin?

[2PhiloVoid]

Moses wasn't around when God spoke the earth into existence.

Neither were Adam & Eve.This would have been Lucifer before the Fall.

God assigned Lucifer a task in the Garden of Eden, and God said to him that he "sealest up the sum" -- meaning he had all the qualifications to do his job.

Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

And how did Moses know what to write, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

And how did Moses know what to write, AV?

Moses didn't write the book of Genesis.

He compiled it from other writings, much like Luke did.

For a list of who possibly wrote what in Genesis, see Wiseman Hypothesis

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Moses didn't write the book of Genesis.

He compiled it from other writings, much like Luke did.

For a list of who possibly wrote what in Genesis, see Wiseman Hypothesis

That's one way to look at it, but it's just not the only one nor is it one by which we can know who any of the writers of Genesis were--or when they wrote--with any certainty.

So, being that none of us knows with any certainty about the nature of the Genesis narrative(s), I think it's best to not make the Theory of Evolution (or its first big professor [i.e. Mr. Darwin]) a bogeyman.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's one way to look at it, but it's just not the only one nor is it one by which we can know who any of the writers of Genesis were--or when they wrote--with any certainty.

In that case, we simply say God wrote it.

If you get a letter from the CEO of a corporation, but you don't know the secretary's name who typed the letter, do you question the letter's authenticity?

Of course not: you don't need to know the secretary's name.

It's not going to change anything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In that case, we simply say God wrote it.

If you get a letter from the CEO of a corporation, but you don't know the secretary's name who typed the letter, do you question the letter's authenticity?

Of course not: you don't need to know the secretary's name.

It's not going to change anything.

This is where you and I kind of divide epistemologically.

I don't think we know enough with certainity to say "God wrote it." And moreover, theological theories about the nature of Biblical inspiration abound. So, we don't know the percise answer to 'what' the bible is either. I think it's best to take the Bible with a grain of salt when handling its obviously human aspects.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is where you and I kind of divide epistemologically.

I don't think we know enough with certainity to say "God wrote it." And moreover, theological theories about the nature of Biblical inspiration abound. So, we don't know the percise answer to 'what' the bible is either. I think it's best to take the Bible with a grain of salt when handling its obviously human aspects.

Then you're missing out on a blessing, aren't you?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then you're missing out on a blessing, aren't you?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

No, I'm not missing out, brother AV? Because despite the fact that I said we need to take the Bible with a grain of salt this doesn't also mean that I disbelieve it wholesale.

So, when Paul, being the approved apostle that we believe him to be, says to the Thessalonian church that they need to consider his message to be reflective of, and inspired by, God, I don't discount it. In fact, after making certain studious hermeneutical qualifications about what it is I think I'm reading in 1 Thessalonians, I can take Paul's words seriously. It's just that I realize, too, that because the statement you've cited from Paul is brief and in no way comprehensive in nature, I know it doesn't explain the actual theological 'mechanics' of inspiration to us. We simply read an indication that we should take Paul seriously because he is Christ's messenger to the church: Paul has received from God what the church needs to hear.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Those who shouted for joy when God created (and populated) the earth included:

1. Lucifer
2. Michael
3. Gabriel
4. the rest of the angelic realm

Adam and Eve, of course, were not eyewitnesses.

You should include Elrond, Mr Spock, and Bruce Wayne, on that list.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should include Elrond, Mr Spock, and Bruce Wayne, on that list.

Do you want to start answering my questions for me?

As Mr Spock put it, "The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you want to start answering my questions for me?

It would save time, that's for sure.

As Mr Spock put it, "The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining."

Who would notice the difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who would notice the difference?

That's why I'm fond of asking:

"Would you even know the difference?"

 

[Astrid]

You should include Elrond, Mr Spock, and Bruce Wayne, on that list.

Or maybe stop enabling the same person to hijack
every thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or maybe stop enabling the same person to hijack every thread.

Jealous?

 

[Astrid]

No, I'm not missing out, brother AV? Because despite the fact that I said we need to take the Bible with a grain of salt this doesn't also mean that I disbelieve it wholesale.

So, when Paul, being the approved apostle that we believe him to be, says to the Thessalonian church that they need to consider his message to be reflective of, and inspired by, God, I don't discount it. In fact, after making certain studious hermeneutical qualifications about what it is I think I'm reading in 1 Thessalonians, I can take Paul's words seriously. It's just that I realize, too, that because the statement you've cited from Paul is brief and in no way comprehensive in nature, I know it doesn't explain the actual theological 'mechanics' of inspiration to us. We simply read an indication that we should take Paul seriously because he is Christ's messenger to the church: Paul has received from God what the church needs to hear.

How do you take Paul seriously after that nonsensical
snake stoty?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you take Paul seriously after that nonsensical
snake stoty?

Good question, Estrid, but this thread is about the validity of Mr. Darwin and his respective work on the initial public growth of the Theory of Evolution. At least, that is the general direction I think @Mr Laurier wants this to go. So, please forgive me if I demur to not answering your question here.

I can answer it elsewhere, though, if you'd like.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can answer it elsewhere, though, if you'd like.

Acts 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

Estrid thinks Paul wrote the snake story.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Acts 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

Estrid thinks Paul wrote the snake story.

Lol! ok. But I thought she was referring to the "other" snake story ... If so, I see her point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lol! ok. But I thought she was referring to the "other" snake story ... If so, I see her point.

What other snake story?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What other snake story?

That really old one. Y'know, the one that involves a lot of green foilage.

 

[Astrid]

Good question, Estrid, but this thread is about the validity of Mr. Darwin and his respective work on the initial public growth of the Theory of Evolution. At least, that is the general direction I think @Mr Laurier wants this to go. So, please forgive me if I demur to not answering your question here.

I can answer it elsewhere, though, if you'd like.

Seeing as how i complain about the guy who derails every
evolution thread, i dont want to derail this one.
I would tho at anyone's convenience, like a reasoned,
analytical response elsewhere.