Would you change your opinion

[lucaspa]

I would be very interested in a source that chronicles Mormon or Islamic conversion experiences that rivals the countless stories I've read regarding the life changing experiences of millions of Christians down through the ages. The isolated experience Mohammad and Joseph Smith are not on par with the millions of dramatic conversion experiences of people for all nations, cultures, education, social, ecomonic and religious backgrounds. Neither does the spiritual experiences of Buddist who are participating in mediation seek a transcendant experience. I'm talking about people who's lives were going in one direction and were completely turned around in a moment of time.

I'm talking about the millions of ordinary Mormons or Buddhists or Muslims who claim to have had such experiences, not just Smith and Mohammed.

You can go to any Mormon Temple and listen to their testimonials. They are very similar to your testimonial except they are for Mormonism.
http://www.ismail.tripod.com/Conversion.htm
That took me 30 seconds on a Google search. I'm sure you can find many more with a little effort.

You missed my point. The account of Paul's conversion includes the fact that there were others accompanying him on his way to Damascus to arrest Christians when he had this conversion experience. What I was appealing to was the accuracy of Luke's account of the event.

I stand corrected. Acts 9:7 does say "the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." So the account says specifically that no one else saw the Risen Jesus, only Saul.

I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to the whole 15th chapter. My main point was regarding the redemptive death and life giving resurrection of Christ as being the cornerstone of Christian doctrine (versus 1 ~ 20).

Then we are back to the question: what does science or evolution say that contradicts verses 1-20?

"Quoting does not acknowledge the writing as being the Word of God. People often quote the Iliad and even quote from it what the Greek gods are saying. That doesn't validate the Greek pantheon or the details of the history contained in the Iliad. I haven't seen any place where Jesus said the Pentateuch was the "Word of God." In fact, I doubt the gospel authors would ever have that in there, because for them Jesus was the "Word of God". In fact, John 1:1 says this explicitly."

We're not talking about just anyone quoting the Bible. We're talking about Jesus the living Word quoting the Bible.

No difference. A criteria is universal or you are engaging in special pleading. Remember, no TE denies that there are theological truths in Genesis 1-11. And Jesus does refer to these theological truths. But you can refer to truths other than scientific or historical truths without meaning any science or history there is accurate. For instance, I can quote Polonius' "To thine own self be true and it follows as the night the day, that thou canst not then be false to any man." That is true, but Polonius, Hamlet, and the Denmark portrayed in Hamlet are not historically true.

As I read the places Jesus referred to the OT, that is just what he was doing.

he quoted the books and affirmed there divine authority.

That is a different claim from being literally true. Again, no TE denies that Genesis 1-11 were inspired. They are there to impart messages about how to go to Heaven. They are just not there to teach you how the heavens go.

If an leading authority on particle physics makes reference to an article written on string theory (with or without making any conditional statements regarding the overall accuracy of the article) it does tend to lend credibility to the article. That's not logical fallacy or non-sequitor.

I'm afraid you have that backwards. When a scientist cites an article, he is using the data in the article to give his words credibility, not to give credibility to the article. In science, the ultimate authority is the physcial universe, not the scientist. Scientists do not view their fellows with reverence, and you shouldn't either. We can admire their past work, but their present work has to undergo the same scrutiny and criticism. If the work doesn't pass, it doesn't pass, no matter the reputation of the scientist. For instance, look what happened to Einstein in the 1930s. He became the laughingstock of the community of physicists for his continued refusal to accept quantum mechanics. Linus Pauling was a towering figure in physics, but his vitamin C ideas were savaged because the data didn't back him up.

"I claim that having to accept a literal Genesis 1-11 in order to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior does not follow."

Well we do agree on something . I'm not claiming that you do BUT I think it becomes very difficult to explain why the passages shouldn't be interpreted literal using only considerations of the language, the immediate context and what appears to be the usage of these passages in a very literal sense in other parts of the Bible.

It's nice to see you abandon your own logical fallacy, but I'm puzzled why you agreed so quickly since you are the one that made the link.

The textual clues are very plain that Genesis 1-3 are not literal. Here, let me summarize them:
1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

Names:
"Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.

Also, see the thread on Episcopalian Bishop.

I don't know how to reconcil what I believe is the appropriate literal translation of the Bible with evolutionary theory. If you want to say the Genesis account shouldn't be interpreted literally your basis for saying that based on the books I've read on the subject can't be the immediate language and context.

Yes, it is partly the immediate language and context. See above.

I don't think you can get an "appropriate literal" interpretation. I would note, however, that the "Let the waters bring forth" and "let the land bring forth" hint at evolution. But I don't think that was intentional.

I don't think Genesis 1 should be read at all literally. The best sense I have seen it interpreted is in connection with the Enuma Elish -- the Babylonian creation epic. Genesis 1 pretty closely follows the creative sequence of the Enuma Elish except it takes all the entities that are gods in the Babylonian Pantheon and destroys them as gods by making them creations of Yahweh.

Ever wonder why God parted the waters? Because the first Babylonian gods are Apsu and Tiamet -- sweetwater and saltwater oceans. Their commingling gives rise to an offspring that is land. Ever wonder why plants are created before the sun? Well, the chief Babylonian god is Marduk (3rd generation god) and his is god of agricultural plants. Look carefully at Genesis 1:11. The plants listed are agricultural plants. Fruit trees and herbs. Now, the sun goddess is Marduk's younger sister, so the sun gets created later. Not because that is the way creation went, but because Genesis 1 is getting rid of the Babylonian gods in sequence.

I submit that we have tried to falsely impose our own ideas on Genesis 1. the important thing to the authors was not to give an accurate history of creation, but to save the souls of the Israelites and prevent them from believing in the Babylonian gods. Now, from a spiritual perspective, isn't that much more important? In our remove from the history of the time and our arrogance and the fact that the poetry in Hebrew didn't translate to English, we have forgotten what Genesis 1 was supposed to do and imposed our will on it.

I've read some literature that appears to allow for a literal translation and an old earth (what's known as the gap theory) but I don't know of any way to literally translate the Genesis account of the creation of man that comforms with him (man) having evolved from a lower species of animals without incorporating a bunch of twist and turns in the meaning of words and grammer that don't conform to standard rules of interpretation.

When you use "interpretation" here, you mean "translation". The meanings of words and grammar are part of translation. Choose the most appropriate English word and grammar to correspond to the Hebrew. However, interpretation is getting to the meaning the authors meant to convey, and that is related to, but different from translation. Obviously you must have a correct translation, but that is not enough. For instance, if you hear a kid describe Britney Spears as "hot", that doesn't mean she has a fever. You got the word correct, but the interpretation is all wrong.

You are forgetting one of the standard rules of interpretation:
"Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation. " You have taken Genesis 1 out of its historical setting.

You are also forgetting another Rule if Intepretation:
"Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts." Which means, of course, that you have to take into account what is found by science.

BTW, all the rules are given here:
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

 

[lucaspa]

the teachings of other religions are self-aggrandizing self-worship, or ancestor worship.. the Koran is thinly veiled justification for rape and murder.The sad thing is that the Wahabists *terrorists* are the only ones following the book of Satan the way it’s honestly written.

Magus, I can tell that you have never read the Quran. You are repeating the hateful words of others. There are copies online. I suggest you read them.

I would remind you that the Bible was used to justify slavery, lynchings, and the rape of slaves. So pot, meet kettle.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Fact: Mohammed was a rapist soldier of fortune before he spoke to his 'angle of light' * Gabriel, so it said*

FACT: Mohammed continued to be a rapist soldier of fortune after receiving he spoke to an 'angle of light'



I’ve got no hate for the people of Islam, but the faith is based on Satanism.

the teachings of treating everyone equally, even Christians, is in the Koran, but right after it is an affirmation of cutting off someone’s hand for theft. Treating women equally is part of the Koran, and so is using them as breading stock, willing or not.

 

[lucaspa]

Fact: Mohammed was a rapist soldier of fortune before he spoke to his 'angle of light' * Gabriel, so it said*

Fact: Mohammed was a merchant.

FACT: Mohammed continued to be a rapist soldier of fortune after receiving he spoke to an 'angle of light'

Fact: Mohammed was never a soldier.
http://www.sacklunch.net/biography/M/Mohammed.html

I’ve got no hate for the people of Islam,

If that were true you wouldn't be trying to slander Mohammed with false witness.

but the faith is based on Satanism.

You have noticed, haven't you, that Allah is the same as the Yahweh of the OT? Your intolerance is really scary. You can decide not to believe Islam without doing this.

the teachings of treating everyone equally, even Christians, is in the Koran, but right after it is an affirmation of cutting off someone’s hand for theft. Treating women equally is part of the Koran, and so is using them as breading stock, willing or not.

Have you noticed that Leviticus lets you sell your daughter into sexual slavery and you can use your slaves as breeding stock, willing or not? Did you notice that Abraham gave his wife Sarah to Pharoah as wife, against her will? All to gain favor and wealth from Pharaoah. Pot, meet kettle.

The OT says "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". The OT wouldn't cut your hand off for theft; you would be stoned.

Historically, Moslems were tolerant of Christians in their midst. Up until the Crusades, at any rate, when Christians taught them religious intolerance.

The Jews in Spain lived in tolerance when Muslims ruled Spain. As soon as the Christians Ferdinand and Isabella conquored Islamic Spain, the Jews were expelled.

Magus, you don't have to agree with a belief system, but you at least have to get the facts straight. Anything less is violating the 9th Commandment, and I don't see any exceptions for that -- such as Christians defending their faith are allowed to commit false witness.

 

[pmh1nic]

The Cat Stevens account is the account of a man spending years seeking for answers to his existence and believing he has found the answer in Islam. This is not the type of experience I was alluding to when I asked about Muslim, Mormon, etc. conversions experiences. He was following a path that he believes leads him to God. The conversion experiences I alluded to were those of people going in one direction who's lives were dramatically turned around in a moment of time via an encounter with the resurrected Christ.

"A criteria is universal or you are engaging in special pleading."

You're using the wrong bases as the critieria. It's not just anyone quoting anything, it's Jesus the Lord and Savior quoting from the text that the Jews acknowledge as the Word of God. It's not special pleading it's the acknowledgement of the speak quality of the speaker and the prominences of the OT scriptures in Judaism in Jesus day.

"I'm afraid you have that backwards. When a scientist cites an article, he is using the data in the article to give his words credibility, not to give credibility to the article."

I seriously doubt if any self-respect scientist would quote data from an article (even if those pieces of data were accurate) if he knew the article itself contained fundamental flaws. He would probably find some other source for the same data or if none exist (understanding the very natural human tendency to make the type of associations we're talking about) be careful to qualify the use of the data versus a validation of the whole article. That said, given we're talking about a very special authority (Jesus) quote a book that was viewed as having divine authority (OT scriptures), Jesus quoting of these passage is a validation of there divine inspiration.

"I claim that having to accept a literal Genesis 1-11 in order to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior does not follow."

Well we do agree on something . I'm not claiming that you do BUT I think it becomes very difficult to explain why the passages shouldn't be interpreted literal using only considerations of the language, the immediate context and what appears to be the usage of these passages in a very literal sense in other parts of the Bible.

"It's nice to see you abandon your own logical fallacy, but I'm puzzled why you agreed so quickly since you are the one that made the link."

I'm not sure what logical fallacy you're talking about. I agreed with you that salvation isn't based on believing that the earth was created in six days or that man isn't the product of the evolution of other species. I've never claimed that this was a requirement for salvation.

I'll dig into the tranlation and interpretation part of your post in depth later in the day but just a couple of quick notations now.

What you call contradictions are really contradictions.

1. The use of Elohim in Genesis 1 and Yahweh Elohim in Genesis 2 is of no significants as far as the creation account is concerned except that Elohim is a general term for God as creator and Yahweh is used as a term for God in His relationship with man (Moses told to use this name when going to deliver the children of Israel).

2. The usage of the word day should be understood in the context. The word day is used in the Bible to denote a period of time that could be days, weeks or months. In Genesis 2 the word day "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" is clearly not speaking of a literal 24 hour day given the context. The days in Genesis 1 are 24 hour days based on the context "the evening and the morning"....

As I mentioned before you have to looking at the standard and special usage of words and determine based on the context how the word should be interpreted in each situation.

I'll get more into this later in the day but one thing to keep in mind is that Genesis one is an account of creation in general while Genesis two has man as the special focus of the creation account. There are no contradictions just a different focus in giving the two accounts.

 

[lucaspa]

The Cat Stevens account is the account of a man spending years seeking for answers to his existence and believing he has found the answer in Islam. This is not the type of experience I was alluding to when I asked about Muslim, Mormon, etc. conversions experiences. He was following a path that he believes leads him to God. The conversion experiences I alluded to were those of people going in one direction who's lives were dramatically turned around in a moment of time via an encounter with the resurrected Christ.

The account did have a turn around in the hospital and took his life in a new direction. Not the "risen Christ", but then, we can't exclude it from criteria because it lacks the risen Christ, can we? As I said, that was the first one I came to.

"A criteria is universal or you are engaging in special pleading."

You're using the wrong bases as the critieria. It's not just anyone quoting anything, it's Jesus the Lord and Savior quoting from the text that the Jews acknowledge as the Word of God. It's not special pleading it's the acknowledgement of the speak quality of the speaker and the prominences of the OT scriptures in Judaism in Jesus day.

Also, as I think about it some more, you are again using the criteria backwards. Jesus is not giving authority to the OT, but using the OT to give authority to his words.

"I'm afraid you have that backwards. When a scientist cites an article, he is using the data in the article to give his words credibility, not to give credibility to the article."

I seriously doubt if any self-respect scientist would quote data from an article (even if those pieces of data were accurate) if he knew the article itself contained fundamental flaws.

Of course not, but the point remains: the article is lending credibility to the speaker, not the speaker to the article. Thus, if the article is wrong -- whether the speaker knew it or not -- the speaker's reputation cannot save the article. That is, the article's credibility is independent of whether the speaker used it. The speaker's credibility depends on the article, but not the article on the speaker. Do you follow this? Even tho the speaker used the article, if we can show by independent means that the data in the article is wrong, then the speaker is wrong. That the speaker used the article won't make wrong data be right.

We actually see this all the time in the creationist vs evolution debate when creationists misquote articles by evolutionists. When we find the misquote, it is the creationist that suffers, not the article. The reputation of Henry Morris, Duane Gish, or Ken Ham is damaged. The creationist cannot make the misquote be the real quote.

And that is the problem you face with trying to use Jesus to give credibility to a literal Genesis. Jesus uses the OT to give him credibility. In Mark 10 and Matthew 19, for instance, Jesus is using the creation accounts to give credibility to Jesus' pronouncement that the divorce laws of Moses are wrong. Thus, Jesus can't give credibility to Genesis, but relies on Genesis for his own credibility.

So, if it turns out, for unrelated reasons, that Genesis is wrong, then it is Jesus that is in trouble. Jesus can't rescue Genesis. Which is what you are trying to do.

In the event, a literal Genesis is wrong. So now we are faced with the problem of Jesus' credibility! Good job. I guess I should "thank" you for bringing the issue into proper perspective, altho now I am faced with the problem of Jesus being credible.

However, Jesus is saved because Jesus doesn't use the literal meaning, but the theological meaning. If you insist on a literal reading, then you are faced with what you are trying to prevent -- Jesus being falsified. Another danger of Biblical literalism.

I'll dig into the tranlation and interpretation part of your post in depth later in the day but just a couple of quick notations now.

What you call contradictions are really contradictions.

1. The use of Elohim in Genesis 1 and Yahweh Elohim in Genesis 2 is of no significants as far as the creation account is concerned except that Elohim is a general term for God as creator and Yahweh is used as a term for God in His relationship with man (Moses told to use this name when going to deliver the children of Israel).

It is of relevance because it indicates two sources -- one using Elohim (that's gods plural in Hebrew if you are using a literal translation) and one using Yahweh. But the word Yahweh is used in Genesis 2:4 when God is being the Creator of the heavens and earth. So this attempt to make the words apply to different aspects of God doesn't work.

2. The usage of the word day should be understood in the context. The word day is used in the Bible to denote a period of time that could be days, weeks or months. In Genesis 2 the word day "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" is clearly not speaking of a literal 24 hour day given the context.

The word is"beyom". "in the day" is the translation of "beyom". This is adding the prefix "be" to the word "yom". I have consulted 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries and all of the have "beyom" translated as being within a 24 hour day. An alternative translation could be "in the moment" or "at the instant", but not a generic "when" of indefinitely long time. It's a very short time period of less than a day. In the context, it is still a 24 hour day. By context here, you mean the theory of a 6 day creation, but it is exactly the imposing of an outside theory that you are forbidden to use in deciding a literal interpretation! You can't have it both ways. You can't forbid making a non-literal interpretation based on extrabiblical knowledge but then make non-accurate translation based on your extrabiblical theory of creation.

As I mentioned before you have to looking at the standard and special usage of words and determine based on the context how the word should be interpreted in each situation.

And as I said, you can't impose meanings to avoid problems with your interpretation.

I'll get more into this later in the day but one thing to keep in mind is that Genesis one is an account of creation in general while Genesis two has man as the special focus of the creation account. There are no contradictions just a different focus in giving the two accounts.

This is the standard response. It doesn't work because you have birds created on day 5 in Genesis 1 being created after Adam in Genesis 2.

Again, if you are evaluating the stories, you can't force them to fit this theory. This theory must be a conclusion of the data, not a forced compatibility because you want only 1 creation story.

 

[lucaspa]

The conversion experiences I alluded to were those of people going in one direction who's lives were dramatically turned around in a moment of time via an encounter with the resurrected Christ.

As I look at this again, I realize that you are on a dangerous path. What you are doing is assuming that only these types of "wham, bam" dramatic turn-arounds are valid experiences and that slower conversions and experiences are not valid. What this is going to do is get Christianity falsified!

My reasoning is this:
1. Most Christians have not had these dramatic turnarounds. Theirs have been slow, gradual realizations that God is real. See the quote at the end of the post. You are about to disallow these slow conversions as rea.
2. With the wham-bam conversions as a small minority, you make it more likely that the conversion is due to some other source than God. Funny mushrooms, other alkaloids, a mild epileptic fit, etc. Because all of these have been shown to induce the "other presence" experience when there isn't any other presence.
3. If the wham-bam experiences are a minority and limited to only Christianity, then the alternative hypothesis is that the Christians actually don't have the valid experiences and all the other religions do.

All in all, the underlying premise that only wham-bam conversion experiences are valid and limited to Christianity is a very dangerous premise. Besides being invalid, of course.

"Therefore, before proceeding further, we shall give the floor temporarily tho those who claim they have experiential evidence of God, and allow them to clarify what they mean by such evidence. ... However, when it comes to the nature of experience of the presence of God, there isan astouding degree of consensus. The following statements, in order to keep us as close to the source as possible, come not from the past but from our contemporaries, from persons with whom I have spoken directly. They are, however, echoed throughout the history and literature of religion.
"The experience is usually not 'spooky'. It sometimes, though definitely not always, might be termed 'mystical'. It doesn't for the most part consist of events which by their nature overturn or challenge the laws of science. (I've heard only one first-hand account of an event which, if it really happened, would be very difficult to explain by any process presently known to science.) The experience doesn't establish a hot-line to God, by which all questions are answered, all doubts set aside, and complete understanding is reached. ... People are quick to point out that, though they think their experience really is of God, it is, even at its clearest and best, only a partial, human, inadequate view of what God really is and what God is really doing. Experiential evidence sometimes comes in a flash, but it's more often the accumulation of more subtle experiences over a period of time.
"John S. Spong .... 'I do not mean to suggest that I have arrived at some mystical plateau where my search has ended, where doubts are no more, or that I now possess some unearthly peace of mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have only arrived at a point where the search has a validity because I have tasted the reality of this presence, if ever so slightly.'
"As to finding God initially, some say they came rather gradually to a realization that the God they'd learned about in books, songs, and from other people, is real. Others on the contrary battered the gates of heaven .. with very sceptical demands for answers, IF such a heaven existed. Their uncompromising intellectuality led them to try to pin God to the wall in ways that might be expected to elicit a lightning bolt rather than blessing. Their requirements for evidence and proofs were seldom met exactly as specified, but there was a moment in the process when they realized to their astonishment that they were wrestling with a real being who couldn't be contained in human descriptions or standards, not a concept or an abstraction. This God was something out of their control, something not fashioned in the image they had formed in their mind ...
"The testimony is of God's leadership being requested and and received at turning points where human foresight and knowledge were inadequate, and of God's leadership turning out to be exactly on target, though perhaps not in the direction one would have preferred. ... God has stopped some persons dead, when they did not want to be stopped, on the brink of serious mistakes. God has changes some in ways human beings can't change themselves even with allthe help of psychotherapy. God has made it possible for them to love the unlovable, forgive the unforgiveable. ... Has all this been 'spritual' help? Not according to these witnesses. God is a powerful and active God, interveining wherever, whenever, and through whatever avenue he pleases. The phrase 'the insidiousness of God' comes from a woman Episcopal priest. God's intervention is not always kind, gentle, or pleasurable. He refuses to play by human rules or indulge our desire to plan ahead. ... God does not always come at our coalling, give us what we want, or even shield us from terrible pain or grief ... but God's forgiveness and love know no limits whatsoever.
"Some direct quotes: 'My relationship with God has been by far and away the most demanding relationship in my life.' 'The Lord has been my strongest support, but also my most frustrating opponent.' 'If I didn't absolutely know this is the only game in town, I'd sure as hell get out of it!' ''The best evidence isn't some 'wonder' or 'miracle', and it certainly isn't success, happiness, or the peace of having my prayers answered in ways which suit me. It's the extraordinary, topsy-turvy, interesting course my life has taken since I've engaged in this -- once begun, virtually inescapable -- dialogue with God." Kitty Ferguson's The Fire in the Equations, pp 248- 251.

 

[pmh1nic]

lucaspa

If you read some of my earlier post in this thread you'd know I wasn't saying that all Christian converion experiences were of the "wham, bang" kind. My point wasn't to diminish the experience of Christians that have had a gradual entering into a relationship with Jesus Christ. That said the account of Paul's Damacus Road experience (going in one direction and having a dramatic and complete turn around in a moment of time) has been repeated in the lives of millions of people. That's not the experience related in the Cat Steven's account.

"Also, as I think about it some more, you are again using the criteria backwards. Jesus is not giving authority to the OT, but using the OT to give authority to his words."

Wrong. Jesus spoke authoritatively as the only begotten Son of God as related in the gospels. The OT scriptures were viewed as being authoritative and Jesus quoting those scriptures solidifies that view of their authority.

"Of course not, but the point remains: the article is lending credibility to the speaker, not the speaker to the article."

Again, I think you have it backwards. Jesus spoke authoritatively based on His being the only Son of God. His quoting the OT scriptures adds nothing to His authority. I can quote the scriptures all day long but just the fact that I'm quoting the scriptures says nothing about my inherent authority. His quoting of the scriptures lends credence to them being the word of God.

The word beyom is used thoughout Bible and sometimes denotes a literal 24 hour day and at other times denotes a period of time. The context helps clarify which meaning is appropriate. It is clear from the context of Genesis 1 and 2 that the usage in Genesis 1 is a 24 hour day and Genesis 2 a period of time (the six days of creation). Pretty simple and straight forward.

Yahweh is the special name of God introduced in Exodus when God instructs Moses regarding deliverence of the children of Israel from Egypt. It's a name connect with God being Lord of His people. Elohim is the plural name of God and used in Genesis 1 with respect to His creative work. It's significant in that Elohim is used with respect to creation in general but Yahweh in connection with Genesis 2 which focuses on the creation of man.

"The best evidence isn't some 'wonder' or 'miracle'"

I agree with that statement BUT the NT is full of miracles, attesting signs that Jesus Christ was who he claimed to be, Savior of mankind, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The miracles that took place then and the dramactic, life changing experiences recounted by millions of Christians throughout the centuries since then DO attest to the reality of Jesus Christ being who He claimed to be. The resurrected Christ (Budda is dead, Mohammad is dead, Joseph Smith is dead) and the miraculous change in the lives of millions testify that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Salvation doesn't rely on your believing in the special creation of man or a six day creation. This is one of the reasons I pretty much try to stay out of these debates. That said it's my understanding that you're presented with some serious linguistic problems when you try to interpret the biblical account of creation in Genesis in a way that conforms with the theory of evolution (man evolving from lower forms of animals). The days in Genesis 1 are six 24 hour days (evening and morning). It makes no literary sense, either based on the words used or the context, to turn the 24 hour day of the creation of man in Genesis one to a period of millions of years in Genesis 2. The ONLY reason the attempt is made to do that is to try and make the Genesis account of creation conform to the theory of evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

If you read some of my earlier post in this thread you'd know I wasn't saying that all Christian converion experiences were of the "wham, bang" kind. My point wasn't to diminish the experience of Christians that have had a gradual entering into a relationship with Jesus Christ. That said the account of Paul's Damacus Road experience (going in one direction and having a dramatic and complete turn around in a moment of time) has been repeated in the lives of millions of people. That's not the experience related in the Cat Steven's account.

1. The Steven's experience does document a dramatic change in direction -- during the hospital stay.
2. You can't let the Steven's experience stand for every experience among Muslims. I have talked to Muslims who give testimonials to the dramatic change Allah made in their lives. Stories very similar to yours.
3. Since you admit that gradual experiences among Christians are valid, you can't use a minority of wham-bang experiences to prove Christianity. If gradual experiences are valid -- and you admit they are -- then the gradual experiences of other religions are just as valid. What's more, if you claim that wham-bang are unique to Christianity, you set up the situation that it is the wham-bang experiences that are the frauds (since they are the minority) and thus the claim that Christianity is founded on fraudulent experiences. Other religions can claim that only the gradual experiences are truly valid.

So, you can use the wham-bang experiences as defense against atheist attack. You can say it is difficult to account for them other than intervention by a deity. But you can't use them as offense that Christianity is the one true religion.

"Also, as I think about it some more, you are again using the criteria backwards. Jesus is not giving authority to the OT, but using the OT to give authority to his words."

Wrong. Jesus spoke authoritatively as the only begotten Son of God as related in the gospels.

Look at Mark 10 again. verses 4-9
"They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and maother be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.' So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Jesus is using scripture here, from both Genesis 1 and 2, to justify his words in the last two sentences that divorce is not allowed. That is, he is not using his authority, but borrowing authority from scripture.

The OT scriptures were viewed as being authoritative and Jesus quoting those scriptures solidifies that view of their authority.

To you, but you are using hindsight. To the Pharisees, Jesus had no authority because it was not established that he was the Son of God. That wouldn't happen until after the Resurrection, and even then the Pharisees would not acknowledge it. Instead, you are correct that the OT scriptures were viewed as being authoritative, and Jesus is using that authority to make his case. He is not giving authority to them, but taking authority from them.

"Of course not, but the point remains: the article is lending credibility to the speaker, not the speaker to the article."

Again, I think you have it backwards. Jesus spoke authoritatively based on His being the only Son of God. His quoting the OT scriptures adds nothing to His authority. I can quote the scriptures all day long but just the fact that I'm quoting the scriptures says nothing about my inherent authority. His quoting of the scriptures lends credence to them being the word of God.

1. My words were talking about scientists. You changed the terms and went back to Jesus.
2. Jesus authority as Son of God was only established after his death and resurrection. And yes, when Jesus quoted scriptures it said nothing about his inherent authority. As Mark 10 has just demonstrated, the only authority Jesus had there for his pronouncement on divorce came from scripture. None of it came from him.

The word beyom is used thoughout Bible and sometimes denotes a literal 24 hour day and at other times denotes a period of time.

I have looked at all of them. All instances mean a period less than 24 hours, usually immediate. One time the judgement of Solomon was not immediate, but that was only because the person had fled from the jurisdiction of Solomon and couldn't be reached. As soon as the offender was present again, he was put to death "beyom" -- in the day that Solomon could put him to death.

It is clear from the context of Genesis 1 and 2 that the usage in Genesis 1 is a 24 hour day and Genesis 2 a period of time (the six days of creation).

It's only clear because you have already made a theory of 6 days and have to fit beyom into it. That's not valid. You can't shoehorn data into a theory. Data rules. Theories have to bend to accomodate data. In this case, there is no context of Genesis 2:4. It starts out "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they where created. In the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth." Notice that there is a more indefinite word used in the "when" in the first sentence. The second sentence is much more definite about the time involved. The context says we are dealing with a time less than 24 hours.

Yahweh is the special name of God introduced in Exodus when God instructs Moses regarding deliverence of the children of Israel from Egypt. It's a name connect with God being Lord of His people. Elohim is the plural name of God and used in Genesis 1 with respect to His creative work. It's significant in that Elohim is used with respect to creation in general but Yahweh in connection with Genesis 2 which focuses on the creation of man.

Yes, "yahweh" is the name that comes from the Burning Bush. However, both Elohim and Yahweh are used thruout the Pentateuch, not just in connection with Creation or the Exodus. For instance, Genesis 6:1-8 uses Yahweh and then 9-22 uses Elohim.

"The best evidence isn't some 'wonder' or 'miracle'"

I agree with that statement BUT the NT is full of miracles,

This was specifically talking about personal experiences. Thus, for personal experiences you don't get a miracle, especially not today. This isn't denying miracles, but saying these were not the best evidence in personal experiences. Please don't take these things out of context, especially after trying to say you have to use "beyom" in context.

The resurrected Christ (Budda is dead, Mohammad is dead, Joseph Smith is dead) and the miraculous change in the lives of millions testify that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Mohammed, Smith, and Buddha never claimed to be anything other than mortal people. However, we are back to the problems I outlined at the beginning of the post. You want to use wham-bang experiences as "proof" of Christianity over other religions. It won't work for 2 reasons:
1. People in each can point to miraculous changes in the lives of millions.
2. Those conversions that were gradual also have to be valid or you set Christianity up to be false.

I'm sorry, Paul, but you simply can't "prove" Christianity. It's a belief. While your personal experience is convincing to you, Cat Stevens' is convincing to him. Tom Johnson's (a Mormon I know) experience is convincing to him. You can politely disagree with with Stevens and Johnson and politely discuss your reasons for disagreement, but none of you have the "proof" to say your beliefs are absolutely, positively right.

Salvation doesn't rely on your believing in the special creation of man or a six day creation. This is one of the reasons I pretty much try to stay out of these debates. That said it's my understanding that you're presented with some serious linguistic problems when you try to interpret the biblical account of creation in Genesis in a way that conforms with the theory of evolution (man evolving from lower forms of animals).

Which is why I don't do that. Neither creation account is meant to give an accurate historical account of how creation happened. Both are meant to convey some very serious theological truths about God and He relationship to humans. These theological truths work just as well (or better) set in modern science as they do set in the Babylonian science of the OT.

It is the attempt to make either Genesis creation story be something it is not -- an accurate depiction of the how of Creation -- that causes the problems. Stop trying to read Genesis 1-11 as history and start reading it as the theology it was meant to be. Let God in His Creation tell you how He created and don't try to make that story fit in with Genesis 1-11.

The days in Genesis 1 are six 24 hour days (evening and morning). It makes no literary sense, either based on the words used or the context, to turn the 24 hour day of the creation of man in Genesis one to a period of millions of years in Genesis 2. The ONLY reason the attempt is made to do that is to try and make the Genesis account of creation conform to the theory of evolution.

Since I'm not doing that, there is no problem, is there? Actually, I don't know anyone who does this. It's what is called a "strawman" argument.

Day-Agers like Sinai or Gerald Schroeder have the "yom" of Genesis 1 be periods or ages of millions of years. Day Agers don't address Genesis 2:4b to my knowledge.

 

[pmh1nic]

The hospital experience of Steven's is NOT an example of a type of dramatic turn around. His falling ill and the time spent in the hospital was causing him to take the time to rethink his life. That is no way akin to the experience of the Apostle Paul and millions of others who were going in one direction and had a sudden, dramatic, 180 degree turn around in their lives via an encounter with Jesus Christ. Many weren't looking for an answer, the answer found them, in many cases in a dramatic fashion.

I'd still be very interest in some source material that chronicals miraculous changes in the lives of Muslims and Mormons.

Jesus was not say Moses was "wrong." What he was doing was pointing out God's perfect will (one wife for life) versus God's permissive will (allowing divorce under certain circumstances).

"To you, but you are using hindsight. To the Pharisees, Jesus had no authority because it was not established that he was the Son of God."

Wrong. Many recognized that Jesus spoke with an authority that even the Scribes and Pharisees did not possess.

"The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law." Mark 1:22

There was at least one Pharisee the recognized His authority (Nicodemus) and probably more.

I didn't develop the six day "theory" of creation. It's been around for centuries. The millions of years theory is relatively new. You are absolute wrong about the use of the word day. The Genesis one account of creation clearly tells you what a day is "evening and morning." No mystery here. You can understand the usage of the word via the context. The meaning of day as far as creation is concerned is 24 hour periods in Genesis one. It cannot mean the same thing in Genesis 2:4 based on what went before it (describing the creation as taking six days) and clearly has to be understood as a period of time, the same way it is used in other place in the Bible. Zechariah 4:10 say's "don't despise the day of small things" is not talking about a literal 24 hour day based on the context.

Elohim is used in specifically in connection with creation in general. Yahweh is used in connection with the creation of man and is the special name of God given to Moses in connection with God's delivering His people from Eygpt. The is no contradiction with both names being used in Genesis one and two. One is used with respect to creation in general while the other is used in connection with the special creation of man.

The same miracles and attesting signs are taking place today. I was miraculously healed and delivered from heroin addiction in one day. I know people that have been healed of cancer and other diseases. The greatest miracles are the dramatic changes in the lives of millions, some of them taking place instantly when they receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

I never claimed I could prove Christianity. If Jesus couldn't prove Christianity (that He was the Lord and Savior) via numerous miracles and His resurrection how could I ever prove Christianity. The creation account is in the Bible to serve as an accurate account of what took place (God doesn't deal in deception and falsehood). Some feel the need to try and make the literal account, meaning the account derived by using the standard rules of translation, conform to the theory of evolution and the evolving of man from simplier forms of life by violating the standard rules of translation and interpretation. It's no strawman arguement. You're doing exactly that by saying the days in Genesis one are not 24 hour days and you try to use the use of the word day in Genesis (a period of time) to justify that interpretation rather than accept the meanings of the words in the logical and contextual fashion they should be understood (as outlined above).

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."

Or it may just be that your science isn't so "sound."

 

[lucaspa]

The hospital experience of Steven's is NOT an example of a type of dramatic turn around. His falling ill and the time spent in the hospital was causing him to take the time to rethink his life. That is no way akin to the experience of the Apostle Paul and millions of others who were going in one direction and had a sudden, dramatic, 180 degree turn around in their lives via an encounter with Jesus Christ.

The problem here is that you tend to define "dramatic turn" only in terms of having an encounter with Jesus. That isn't fair. It's a circular argument by presuming the conclusion in your argument.

I'd still be very interest in some source material that chronicals miraculous changes in the lives of Muslims and Mormons.

Why aren't you looking for them on your own?
http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/june02_index.php?l=6
Also, look at the first 2 paragraphs on this page, note the use of the word "miraculous" http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/june02_index.php?l=3

Paul, I see a distressing tendency in this post to ignore what I have said. Let me review my entire argument here, which you ignored:
"2. You can't let the Steven's experience stand for every experience among Muslims. I have talked to Muslims who give testimonials to the dramatic change Allah made in their lives. Stories very similar to yours.
3. Since you admit that gradual experiences among Christians are valid, you can't use a minority of wham-bang experiences to prove Christianity. If gradual experiences are valid -- and you admit they are -- then the gradual experiences of other religions are just as valid. What's more, if you claim that wham-bang are unique to Christianity, you set up the situation that it is the wham-bang experiences that are the frauds (since they are the minority) and thus the claim that Christianity is founded on fraudulent experiences. Other religions can claim that only the gradual experiences are truly valid.

So, you can use the wham-bang experiences as defense against atheist attack. You can say it is difficult to account for them other than intervention by a deity. But you can't use them as offense that Christianity is the one true religion."

Jesus was not say Moses was "wrong." What he was doing was pointing out God's perfect will (one wife for life) versus God's permissive will (allowing divorce under certain circumstances).

Jesus said Moses wrote down a wrong law. He blamed the hardness of heart of the people for why Moses wrote a law that was wrong, but the law Moses wrote down was still wrong.

"To you, but you are using hindsight. To the Pharisees, Jesus had no authority because it was not established that he was the Son of God."

Wrong. Many recognized that Jesus spoke with an authority that even the Scribes and Pharisees did not possess.

"The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law." Mark 1:22

Nice try, but out of context. Mark 1:21 "And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the sabbath he went into the synagogue and taught." Mark is referring to the congregation, not the Pharisees. Please use the Bible correctly, and don't try to get it to say something it doesn't. I never understand the tendency of some Christians, who claim reverence for the Bible, to try to get the Bible to commit false witness against itself.

Remember, the discussion is not Jesus' identity, but how he used scripture. I have established that in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 (same story) Jesus used scripture to give authority to his words, not gave authority to scripture.

I didn't develop the six day "theory" of creation. It's been around for centuries. The millions of years theory is relatively new. You are absolute wrong about the use of the word day. The Genesis one account of creation clearly tells you what a day is "evening and morning." No mystery here. You can understand the usage of the word via the context. The meaning of day as far as creation is concerned is 24 hour periods in Genesis one. It cannot mean the same thing in Genesis 2:4 based on what went before it (describing the creation as taking six days) and clearly has to be understood as a period of time,

You are now fitting data to the theory. Notice what you are saying: because Genesis 1 says 6 days, then "beyom" can't mean "in the day". IOW, you have already decided that there is only one creation story. But that is circular logic, since it is whether there is one creation story that we are trying to decide! You are presuming the very thing we are trying to determine!

So, you can't decide that "beyom" means indefinite time. You have to look outside this context to see what "beyom" means. And outside this context -- 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries -- beyom means a time period less than a day -- "in the day".

Let me remind you of what I said and about a more indefinite time in Genesis 2:4:
"In this case, there is no context of Genesis 2:4. It starts out "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they where created. In the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth." Notice that there is a more indefinite word used in the "when" in the first sentence. The second sentence is much more definite about the time involved. The context says we are dealing with a time less than 24 hours."

You blew right by the fact that we already have an indefinite "when" in the verse. The context of Genesis 2:4 (which is the only context we can consider here) is that "beyom" is being used to be more definite about the time involved.

the same way it is used in other place in the Bible. Zechariah 4:10 say's "don't despise the day of small things" is not talking about a literal 24 hour day based on the context.

But that isn't "beyom" is it? I'ts "yom". Yes, occasionally "yom" can mean a more indefinite period of time. But "beyom" is a separate word. Just like "side" can be more general but "inside" is more specific.

Elohim is used in specifically in connection with creation in general. Yahweh is used in connection with the creation of man and is the special name of God given to Moses in connection with God's delivering His people from Eygpt. The is no contradiction with both names being used in Genesis one and two. One is used with respect to creation in general while the other is used in connection with the special creation of man.

You blew off my example of Genesis 6. Yahweh is not "used in connection with" but rather is the response Moses got from his question to the Burning Bush -- "I am what I am" or Yahweh (I am) for short. Now, if God is "yahweh" there then God is "yahweh" everywhere and when, because God is constant. That reply isn't just for one answer for Moses, is it?

So, it appears that we have two traditions within Israel. One referes to God as "Elohim" and the other tradition refers to God as "Yahweh". A rose by any other name ... However, it does identify two different traditions and thus different stories that were redacted together in the Pentateuch.

The same miracles and attesting signs are taking place today. I was miraculously healed and delivered from heroin addiction in one day.

Good grief! Neither Ferguson nor I were denying miracles! What Ferguson was saying is that the vast majority of people with evidential experience of God do not see miracles. They are not converted or know God by reason of miracles. Yet that evidence is valid.

Now, in terms of the arguments you are trying to make -- specifically that Christianity is true because of the testimony of abruptly changed lives -- this evidence is the same as that given for other religions. You seem to want to deny the validity of other religions because you think they lack the miraculous conversions. But most Christians were not converted to by miracle experiences!

Look at it this way: there are 6 billion people on the planet. If even 6 million (a high number) have miraculous Christian experiences, that is still only 0.1% of the population. Quite frankly, that is higher than the number of all types of epileptics on the planet! It is known that epileptics can have the experience of seeing someone that is not there (other presence) because epilepsy triggers that part of the brain that is the material component of those experiences. So, instead of providing "testimony" for Christianity, you are actually saying that Christianity is based on the experiences of the epileptic or insane portion of the population! It is the exact opposite of what you intend to do. Which is why I am cautioning you to rethink your argument.

I never claimed I could prove Christianity. If Jesus couldn't prove Christianity (that He was the Lord and Savior) via numerous miracles and His resurrection how could I ever prove Christianity.

Look again at what you said:
The resurrected Christ (Budda is dead, Mohammad is dead, Joseph Smith is dead) and the miraculous change in the lives of millions testify that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Notice that "is the Way, the Truth, and the Life". That is a statement of fact, not belief. You think the testimony establishes Christianity as fact. To state as fact you need to have "proved". Notice also your contrast of the resurrected Christ with the dead Buddha, Mohammed, and Smith, stating that because they are dead the faiths they espoused are not true. Therefore you have "proved" Christianity because they are dead.

If you want to back away from that claim, that is OK. Back away from it. Rephrase your statement to more accurately reflect what you really think. But please don't deny what the statement said.

The creation account is in the Bible to serve as an accurate account of what took place (God doesn't deal in deception and falsehood).

Here we disagree. The creation accounts are there to tell us about the who and why of creation, not to give the how. They are not accurate history. If they were, we wouldn't have the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 that we have. You still haven't addressed the order of creation in the two accounts.

Some feel the need to try and make the literal account, meaning the account derived by using the standard rules of translation, conform to the theory of evolution and the evolving of man from simplier forms of life by violating the standard rules of translation and interpretation. It's no strawman arguement. You're doing exactly that by saying the days in Genesis one are not 24 hour days

But I've never said that the days in Genesis 1 were not meant to be literal 24 hour days! The authors intended 24 hour days. Where do you get the idea that I am a Day Ager? I'm a theistic evolutionist and we don't try to shoehorn Genesis into evolution at all! We take a different approach. I've told you mine: that Genesis 1 is a retelling of the Enuma Elish with Yahweh destroying the Babylonian gods by making them creations of God. Genesis 1 tells us theological messages, not "an accurate account of what took place." The accuracy is in that 1) God created, 2) created alone, 3) pantheons of gods tied to physical objects (sun god, moon god, ocean god, etc) do not exist, 4) there is no magic, and 5) humans were not created to be God's playthings, servants, or even worshippers; they were created for their own sakes. Those are true. But the history in which they are set is not true.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."

Or it may just be that your science isn't so "sound."

Don't you think that was the first thing I checked? And double-checked. And triple checked. If I'm going to make the claim that the interpretation is at fault, then I am going to be very sure that the science is sound! And the science is very sound. So sound that Genesis 1 as an accurate of what took place was given up around 1800. The data from God's Creation then was so overwhelming that Christians knew a literal reading was in error. The data that did it then is still there and now there are mountains of additional data showing that Genesis is not an accurate scientific or historical account.

However, the 5 theological messages I gave above are just as true in what modern science has found as they are in the Babylonian science in which the authors of Genesis 1 put them.

 

[pmh1nic]

"The problem here is that you tend to define "dramatic turn" only in terms of having an encounter with Jesus. That isn't fair. It's a circular argument by presuming the conclusion in your argument."

No circular arguement; what I define as a dramatic turn around is exactly how I described it, a situation where a person is going in one direction who's
life is dramatically turned around in a moment in time. The power behind Christian conversions is the power of the resurrection life of Jesus Christ. That power transforms lives that are headed for destruction and turns them around in a moment of time. Have you heard from Muslims or Mormons that they have been delivered from drug and alcohol addiction, sexual promiscuity, a life of crime, a foul mouth and hatred who's lives have been turn around 180 degrees in a moment in time? If you have supply the testimonies.

As for your references to dramatic life changing conversions to Islam...that's not want is described in the links you provide. The intellectual/spiritual pursuit of these individuals and deciding that they've found the truth is not what I've alluded to regarding the miracle of Christian conversion. What is miraculous about pursuing some intellectual/spiritual experience and coming to the conclusion that you've found the answer? I think what you're describing is a gradual accent to a belief system not a spiritual encounter that dramatically changed their lives, turning them around like the Damascus Road experience of the Apostle Paul.

"Look again at what you said:
The resurrected Christ (Budda is dead, Mohammad is dead, Joseph Smith is dead) and the miraculous change in the lives of millions testify that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Notice that "is the Way, the Truth, and the Life". That is a statement of fact, not belief. You think the testimony establishes Christianity as fact. To state as fact you need to have "proved". Notice also your contrast of the resurrected Christ with the dead Buddha, Mohammed, and Smith, stating that because they are dead the faiths they espoused are not true. Therefore you have "proved" Christianity because they are dead.


If you want to back away from that claim, that is OK. Back away from it. Rephrase your statement to more accurately reflect what you really think. But please don't deny what the statement said."

Sorry but you can't put words in my mouth. First you have to define the word "prove" before you can claim that my statement (Jesus being the Way...) is a statement of fact. Accepting the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a matter of faith. Do I believe there is legal/historical evidence for the resurrection that "proves" that He is the resurrected Lord and Savior? Yes, but ultimately it's a matter of faith. But another evidence that that faith is not misplaced is the dramatic, life changing experiences of millions of Christians who claim to have had an encounter with the resurrected Christ.

And the central question is about Jesus and who He is. Who He is isn't based on His ability to quote scripture. His authority didn't rest in His ability to quote scripture. The Pharisees and Scribes quoted scripture but the masses recognized a power and authority in Jesus that they didn't possess.

"Jesus said Moses wrote down a wrong law. He blamed the hardness of heart of the people for why Moses wrote a law that was wrong, but the law Moses wrote down was still wrong."

You're reading into the gospel account something that is not there. In Jeremiah 3:8 the Lord says "I (the Lord) give faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and set her away because of all her adulteries." Jesus wasn't saying Moses was wrong, he was comparing God's perfect plan before the fall in Genesis two with the accomdation to allow divorce after the fall due to sin and the hardness of men's hearts.

"Nice try, but out of context. Mark 1:21 "And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the sabbath he went into the synagogue and taught." Mark is referring to the congregation, not the Pharisees. Please use the Bible correctly, and don't try to get it to say something it doesn't. I never understand the tendency of some Christians, who claim reverence for the Bible, to try to get the Bible to commit false witness against itself."

Nice try on your part but you ignored my reference to Nicodemus. You also have John12:42 "Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him." So we know that the people, at least one Pharisee (Nicodemus) and some of the leaders recognized His authority.

"You are now fitting data to the theory. Notice what you are saying: because Genesis 1 says 6 days, then "beyom" can't mean "in the day". IOW, you have already decided that there is only one creation story. But that is circular logic, since it is whether there is one creation story that we are trying to decide! You are presuming the very thing we are trying to determine!

So, you can't decide that "beyom" means indefinite time. You have to look outside this context to see what "beyom" means. And outside this context -- 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries -- beyom means a time period less than a day -- "in the day". "

"You blew right by the fact that we already have an indefinite "when" in the verse."

I'm not deciding anything, I'm letting the words and the context in which the words are used determine how they should be understood. The first use of a word sets the precedent. The first use in Genesis one is six 24 hour days. If creation took six 24 hour days in Genesis one then the use of the word day in Genesis two account of creation has to mean (as it does in other places in the Scriptures) a period of time and not a 24 hour day. You invent the contradiction in order to make the creation story fit the theory of evolution. I realize the creation story doesn't fit the theory of evolution but I'm not going to create a contradiction within the Bible to fit the theory.

There is no literary necessity to have a definite day of 24 hours in the same sentence with an indefinite when in Genesis two. The only reason to have it there (day meaning 24 hours) is to create the contradiction you need to begin to question the creation account in Genesis one or that Genesis two is another creation account that allows for the time needed for the evolution of man.

"You blew off my example of Genesis 6."

I didn't blow off Exodus 6 it's a chapter distinctly dealing with God and the deliverance of His people.

"Now, in terms of the arguments you are trying to make -- specifically that Christianity is true because of the testimony of abruptly changed lives -- this evidence is the same as that given for other religions."

You've given no evidence to support that statement. You keep claiming that you do but what you're giving are changes in the lives of individuals who are seeking intellectually or spiritual for answers and believing they have found them in XYZ religion. Nothing miraculous about that.

"Look at it this way: there are 6 billion people on the planet. If even 6 million (a high number) have miraculous Christian experiences, that is still only 0.1% of the population. Quite frankly, that is higher than the number of all types of epileptics on the planet! It is known that epileptics can have the experience of seeing someone that is not there (other presence) because epilepsy triggers that part of the brain that is the material component of those experiences. So, instead of providing "testimony" for Christianity, you are actually saying that Christianity is based on the experiences of the epileptic or insane portion of the population! It is the exact opposite of what you intend to do. Which is why I am cautioning you to rethink your argument."

The Apostle Paul wasn't an epileptics and neither are the millions of others from every walk of life that have dramatic conversion experiences that testify to the transforming power of Christ. Your characterizing the work of grace in the lives of these people, reducing their experience to an episode of epileptic hallucination, is an insult to the power of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of these people.

I think you should be very cautious about making those types of statements.


"But I've never said that the days in Genesis 1 were not meant to be literal 24 hour days! The authors intended 24 hour days. Where do you get the idea that I am a Day Ager? I'm a theistic evolutionist and we don't try to shoehorn Genesis into evolution at all! We take a different approach. I've told you mine: that Genesis 1 is a retelling of the Enuma Elish with Yahweh destroying the Babylonian gods by making them creations of God. Genesis 1 tells us theological messages, not "an accurate account of what took place." The accuracy is in that 1) God created, 2) created alone, 3) pantheons of gods tied to physical objects (sun god, moon god, ocean god, etc) do not exist, 4) there is no magic, and 5) humans were not created to be God's playthings, servants, or even worshippers; they were created for their own sakes. Those are true. But the history in which they are set is not true.

The Bible is not primarily a book of science BUT when it gives definite people, places and times (like the 24 hour days in Genesis one) they are to be taken literal. According to Genesis one man was created in one literal 24 hour day. That doesn't jive with the theory of evolution. I don't know how to reconcile that discrepancy but you can't have it both ways. You've got the Genesis one account of the origin of man being special creation (not evolution from some lower life form over a period of millions of years) in one day and evolution saying it took millions of years. Both can't be correct. If you've decided to believe that Genesis one isn't an accurate, literal account of the creation of man and is only meant to be taken figuratively that figurative interpretation defies the rules of interpretation and it's done so to make the Genesis account fit the theory of evolution. If you feel the need to do that in order to reconcil the Biblical account of creation with the theory of evolution that's your choice but I think that type of broad latitude creates a very weak foundation with respect to Biblical interpretation and opens the door for making the Bible say what we want it to say rather than conveying God's message to man.

 

[lucaspa]

"The problem here is that you tend to define "dramatic turn" only in terms of having an encounter with Jesus. That isn't fair. It's a circular argument by presuming the conclusion in your argument."

No circular arguement; what I define as a dramatic turn around is exactly how I described it, a situation where a person is going in one direction who's
life is dramatically turned around in a moment in time. The power behind Christian conversions is the power of the resurrection life of Jesus Christ. That power transforms lives that are headed for destruction and turns them around in a moment of time. Have you heard from Muslims or Mormons that they have been delivered from drug and alcohol addiction, sexual promiscuity, a life of crime, a foul mouth and hatred who's lives have been turn around 180 degrees in a moment in time? If you have supply the testimonies.

Getting quite specific now, aren't you? You specify drug addiction, sexual promiscuity, a life of crime, a foul mouth, and hatred. Shoot, I don't even know if you've had such an experience! Are all those ingredients necessary? If so, your numbers drop from "millions" to less than a thousand, if that many.

As I said in an earlier post, I've had verbal conversations with Muslims and Mormons who give this type of testimony. But then, all I've got from you is verbal conversation. You haven't provided any links to written accounts by Christians, have you? Where is your evidence?

I see now that it was a mistake to be nice and accept your story at face value. If I'd known I was in a debate instead of a polite, friendly discussion that I thought I was in, I would have demanded your evidence. I see I am dealing with the debate tactic of "shifting the burden of proof" and demanding evidence from your "opponent" that you don't have for your own side. Now, do we continue this in debate mode or do we try again for a polite, friendly discussion with a modicum of trust between us?

I suggested this before, but what you need to do is go to a Mormon Temple or a mosque and listen to the personal testimony of Muslims and Mormons. That's where you are going to find out whether they have had such experiences in a way that will convince you. Also, in a friendly discussion, you would go looking for such stories from Mormons and Muslims yourself online, but you aren't doing that. You demand sources from me and then spend your time criticizing them.

As for your references to dramatic life changing conversions to Islam...that's not want is described in the links you provide.

Look again. Many describe or hint at dramatic changes of direction. They lack the drug addiction and life of crime, but those shouldn't be the defining criteria, because most Christians don't have those problems, either. For instance Saint Thomas Aquinas describes an overwhelming personal experience with God, but he was neither into a life of crime or drugs. CS Lewis also describes a series of dramatic encounters with God that changed him from atheist to theist, but he was neither a drug addict nor criminal, either.

The intellectual/spiritual pursuit of these individuals and deciding that they've found the truth is not what I've alluded to regarding the miracle of Christian conversion.

And not all of them are describing an intellectual pursuit. Some that are are also saying they had an extreme emotional/micraculous conversion, often while reading the "miracle" of the Quran. Remember, Muslims regard the Quran as a miracle. Therefore conversion due to reading the Quran counts, to them, as miraculous because the conversion was accomplished thru the miracle that is the Quran.

What is miraculous about pursuing some intellectual/spiritual experience and coming to the conclusion that you've found the answer?

Question: is this any less valid a road than the miraculous? If God sneaks up on you instead of wham-bang miraculous, is that any less God? This gets back to your attempt to use only the wham-bam as valid. But you can't. If you do that, then your critics say it is the drugs or the alcohol that messed with your mind and your "miracle" isn't due to God, but simply a bad drug reaction that got lucky. Others that got bad drug reactions had their mental pathways changed too, but they died of the reaction.

I think what you're describing is a gradual accent to a belief system not a spiritual encounter that dramatically changed their lives, turning them around like the Damascus Road experience of the Apostle Paul.

And that is there in the testimony. Look again. Their lives were dramatically changed. BTW, Paul was neither a criminal nor drug addict (as far as we know), was he? So "dramatic" doesn't have to be what you specified in your first paragraph. One of the problems I have in this discussion, Paul, is your inconsistency. You are in "debate mode" and make arguments in one part of the post that contradict your position in another part of your post. This is good for a debate, but is terrible in a discussion where we can look at the whole post and see the contradictions.


"Look again at what you said:
The resurrected Christ (Budda is dead, Mohammad is dead, Joseph Smith is dead) and the miraculous change in the lives of millions testify that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Notice that "is the Way, the Truth, and the Life". That is a statement of fact, not belief. You think the testimony establishes Christianity as fact. To state as fact you need to have "proved". Notice also your contrast of the resurrected Christ with the dead Buddha, Mohammed, and Smith, stating that because they are dead the faiths they espoused are not true. Therefore you have "proved" Christianity because they are dead.


If you want to back away from that claim, that is OK. Back away from it. Rephrase your statement to more accurately reflect what you really think. But please don't deny what the statement said."

Sorry but you can't put words in my mouth. First you have to define the word "prove" before you can claim that my statement (Jesus being the Way...) is a statement of fact.

Debate mode again.

Accepting the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a matter of faith. Do I believe there is legal/historical evidence for the resurrection that "proves" that He is the resurrected Lord and Savior? Yes, but ultimately it's a matter of faith. But another evidence that that faith is not misplaced is the dramatic, life changing experiences of millions of Christians who claim to have had an encounter with the resurrected Christ.

Now you are backing away. Instead of presenting your position as fact, you are presenting it as faith. Thank you. Now, when you say "but another evidence that that faith is not misplaced is .." you are giving reasons for your faith.

Now, let me repeat. If you are dealing with an atheist, then you can certainly present this as a reason for beleiving as you do. However, if you are dealing with another religion, you can't use this as evidence that Christianity is valid and their religion is not for the reasons I have discussed.

And the central question is about Jesus and who He is. Who He is isn't based on His ability to quote scripture. His authority didn't rest in His ability to quote scripture. The Pharisees and Scribes quoted scripture but the masses recognized a power and authority in Jesus that they didn't possess.

You are getting far away from your original claim. Originally you were having Jesus validate a literal reading of Genesis 1-11. You claimed that Jesus gave authority to scripture. Now you are claiming that who Jesus is isn't based on his ability to quote scripture. That is an entirely different claim, and one I agree with.

I maintain my claim: Jesus got authority for his arguments from scripture. I will even argue that the gospel writers got authority for who Jesus was from scripture. That is the whole point of the lineages linking Jesus to the House of David, having his birth in Bethlehem, getting the donkey to ride into Jerusalem, and other areas where it is pointed out that Jesus fulfilled the scriptural prophecies of Messiah.

So, you can't validate a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 by saying Jesus quoted them.

"Jesus said Moses wrote down a wrong law. He blamed the hardness of heart of the people for why Moses wrote a law that was wrong, but the law Moses wrote down was still wrong."

You're reading into the gospel account something that is not there. In Jeremiah 3:8 the Lord says "I (the Lord) give faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and set her away because of all her adulteries." Jesus wasn't saying Moses was wrong, he was comparing God's perfect plan before the fall in Genesis two with the accomdation to allow divorce after the fall due to sin and the hardness of men's hearts.

You do realize that italics and underlining don't make your arguments more valid, don't you? Apples and oranges. Jeremiah describes what God did to Israel, and using the metaphor of divorce. It is not saying that God gave the law for divorce, but that God is comparing what He did to what the law said and allowed. Jesus has nothing in Mark 10 or Matthew 19 -- the verses under discussion -- discussing the Fall at all. He simply says that Moses gave the law because of the hardness of heart of the Hebrews. But the law is wrong and Jesus is going to correct it. We are still after the fall and men's hearts are still hard. Nothing has changed in that regard. No way can you get around Jesus saying "Moses gave you" and make that "God said".

 

[lucaspa]

The Bible is not primarily a book of science BUT when it gives definite people, places and times (like the 24 hour days in Genesis one) they are to be taken literal.

You just contradicted yourself in a single sentence. You are saying that the Bible is a book of science. The Bible tells us specifically that rabbits chew their cud, camels have a cloven hoof, bats are birds, the seas are behind gates, the earth does not move, there is a crystal firmament above the earth, etc. We don't take those literal. There is a lot of special pleading in those cases, but the special pleading doesn't work.

But this is the crux of the disagreement. We are finally down to it. You want a literal Genesis 1. I say that neither Genesis 1 nor 2 are literal and we can tell that by 1) text and particularly the contradictions between the stories and 2) the evidence God left in His Creation.

According to Genesis one man was created in one literal 24 hour day.

In Genesis 1:26-27 several men and women were created in one 24 hour day. Genesis 2 doesn't say anything about the time it took to form Adam from the dust. So, the Bible doesn't say what you say it does.

That doesn't jive with the theory of evolution. I don't know how to reconcile that discrepancy but you can't have it both ways. You've got the Genesis one account of the origin of man being special creation (not evolution from some lower life form over a period of millions of years) in one day and evolution saying it took millions of years. Both can't be correct. If you've decided to believe that Genesis one isn't an accurate, literal account of the creation of man and is only meant to be taken figuratively that figurative interpretation defies the rules of interpretation and it's done so to make the Genesis account fit the theory of evolution.

I've posted the Rules of Interpretation for you. What I am doing does not defy those, but goes with them. Specifically, the Rules of Context, Historical Background, Unity, and Inference.

I've told you how to reconcile the "discrepancy", but you insist on reading the Bible as a science text. IOW, you insist on your interpretation despite what God says in the text and in His Creation.

If you feel the need to do that in order to reconcil the Biblical account of creation

The Biblical accounts of creation don't reconcile.

Also, you keep saying "evolution" as tho science is totally disconnected from God. Remember what God did and what science studies.

I think that type of broad latitude creates a very weak foundation with respect to Biblical interpretation and opens the door for making the Bible say what we want it to say rather than conveying God's message to man.

You're already on that slippery slope. We all are. But it isn't as dire as you make out. It sounds dire because of the absolute preeminence you give the Bible and the role the Bible plays in your theology. But that preeminence puzzles me. If your theology is really based on a miraculous conversion and continued experience of Christ, then what does the Biblical interpretation matter? You've already got the source, why elevate the writings of men long dead to such stature? By your evidence, you could drop the entire Bible out of existence and you would still be Christian, right? You'd base it on your miraculous about face in your life.

Now, let's get to some specifics.

"Nice try, but out of context. Mark 1:21 "And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the sabbath he went into the synagogue and taught." Mark is referring to the congregation, not the Pharisees. Please use the Bible correctly, and don't try to get it to say something it doesn't. I never understand the tendency of some Christians, who claim reverence for the Bible, to try to get the Bible to commit false witness against itself."

Nice try on your part but you ignored my reference to Nicodemus. You also have John12:42 "Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him." So we know that the people, at least one Pharisee (Nicodemus) and some of the leaders recognized His authority.

This doesn't change your misuse of the Bible. And I didn't ignore Nicodemus, I hoped you realized he is irrelevant to the claims at hand because he is not present at Mark 10/Matthew 19. It's obvious from context that those Pharisees did not recognize Jesus' authority. So Jesus borrows authority from scripture. In the end, John is wrong about the "many". There aren't enough to keep Jesus from being executed (and by those Jewish leaders according to the Midrash) and there aren't enough to bring significant numbers of Jews to the new Jesus cult after Jesus' death.

"You are now fitting data to the theory. Notice what you are saying: because Genesis 1 says 6 days, then "beyom" can't mean "in the day". IOW, you have already decided that there is only one creation story. But that is circular logic, since it is whether there is one creation story that we are trying to decide! You are presuming the very thing we are trying to determine!

So, you can't decide that "beyom" means indefinite time. You have to look outside this context to see what "beyom" means. And outside this context -- 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries -- beyom means a time period less than a day -- "in the day". "

"You blew right by the fact that we already have an indefinite "when" in the verse."

I'm not deciding anything, I'm letting the words and the context in which the words are used determine how they should be understood. The first use of a word sets the precedent. The first use in Genesis one is six 24 hour days.

But this is the problem. The question is: is Genesis 2 day 6 of Genesis 1? Genesis 1 can't set the context. The Genesis 1 account ends at Genesis 2:3. Genesis 4 is a new context starting another creation account. Your claim is that Genesis 2 is specifically day 6 of Genesis 1. But is it? To determine that we have to look at Genesis 2:4 and afterward to see if it really is telling the day 6 of Genesis 1. You use circular reasoning in deciding that "beyom" means indefinite time based on having Genesis 2 be day 6 of Genesis 1. Can't you see that this is circular reasoning?

If creation took six 24 hour days in Genesis one then the use of the word day in Genesis two account of creation has to mean (as it does in other places in the Scriptures) a period of time and not a 24 hour day.

But the word is not the same word as in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 the word is "yom". But in Genesis 2:4b the word is beyom. Different words with different meanings.

You invent the contradiction in order to make the creation story fit the theory of evolution.

The contradiction was seen by St. Augustine in the 400s AD, long before evolution came up. And the idea of two separate creation stories was first aired in 1718, again long before evolution and independent of it. Evolution has nothing to do with this. I am testing this hypothesis independent of evolution, based solely on the text and the meanings of Hebrew words.

I submit that it is you glossing over the contradiction because of the theory of creationism. You must have a single account, so you gloss over contradictions because they are harmful to your theory of a single creation account.

There is no literary necessity to have a definite day of 24 hours in the same sentence with an indefinite when in Genesis two. The only reason to have it there (day meaning 24 hours) is to create the contradiction you need to begin to question the creation account in Genesis one or that Genesis two is another creation account that allows for the time needed for the evolution of man.

You keep overlooking that we are not dealing with "yom" but "beyom". A different word with a different meaning. The prefix "be" modifies "yom" to give you a time period shorter than a 24 hour day, usually much shorter and meaning "immediate".

"You blew off my example of Genesis 6."

I didn't blow off Exodus 6 it's a chapter distinctly dealing with God and the deliverance of His people.

Genesis 6. Not Exodus

"Now, in terms of the arguments you are trying to make -- specifically that Christianity is true because of the testimony of abruptly changed lives -- this evidence is the same as that given for other religions."

You've given no evidence to support that statement.

I've given you the same evidence you've given me: personal stories told to me by people of other faiths. You've made the claims of "millions" but you haven't provided a list of millions. If you want to be like this, we can turn this from a friendly discussion to a nasty debate.

"Look at it this way: there are 6 billion people on the planet. If even 6 million (a high number) have miraculous Christian experiences, that is still only 0.1% of the population. Quite frankly, that is higher than the number of all types of epileptics on the planet! It is known that epileptics can have the experience of seeing someone that is not there (other presence) because epilepsy triggers that part of the brain that is the material component of those experiences. So, instead of providing "testimony" for Christianity, you are actually saying that Christianity is based on the experiences of the epileptic or insane portion of the population! It is the exact opposite of what you intend to do. Which is why I am cautioning you to rethink your argument."

The Apostle Paul wasn't an epileptics and neither are the millions of others from every walk of life that have dramatic conversion experiences that testify to the transforming power of Christ. Your characterizing the work of grace in the lives of these people, reducing their experience to an episode of epileptic hallucination, is an insult to the power of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of these people.

Where's your evidence? Do you have medical reports from each and every one of these "millions"? In fact, you don't even have the "millions" with dramatic conversion experiences! See how nasty the debate can get if you want?
And you aren't insulting the the power of Allah in the lives of Muslims? Be careful.

The point I made is still valid. IF you insist that the wham-bang experiences elevate Christianity over other religions, then the counterarguments I have given kick in. You are setting the experiences up to be falsified because they 1) are such a minority of religious experiences and 2) are an even smaller minority of experiences of the general population. So instead of having "millions" as tho numbers validated your claim, you are now down to such a very small percentage of the total population that hypotheses that have nothing to do with the power of Christ can be used. You just don't see that. All you see is me gainsaying your evidence. What you don't see is me trying to head off a disaster for Christianity. It's not that Christianity is false, but rather that the argument you are using is flawed and will lead to disaster.

 

[ElElohe]

I answered am a creationist and won't change my mind. This is of course hypothetical, and my answer is derived from the fact that I live by faith not by sight to begin with.

I am pretty much a skeptic in a lot of ways. I don't watch magic shows because I know it is an illusion, and particularly with TV you can do just about anything these days (although Penn and Teller are pretty funny, and besides that tell you how they do it). Likewise, it would be too easy for such evidence as asked for to be falsified.

 

[pmh1nic]

I'm having this discussion based on the hope that everyone involved is being honest and sincere. I'm being more specific because you seemed confused about what constitutes a dramatic turn around (although the Apostle Paul's experience as persecutor then preach is a good example). If you're ever in Brooklyn go visit the Brooklyn Tabernacle and you can meet hundreds of people that have had the dramatic life changing experiences I'm talking about. The millions are the millions. No exaggeration. I'm one in that number (you can believe it or not).

The personal testaments alluded to in the links you provided are testamonies of people that as a result of an intellectual/spiritual pursuit over a period of time believe they have found the answer to the big questions of life. Again, they are not the dramatic conversion experiences I've made reference to. Conversion while pursuing the truth in reading the Koran isn't the same. I also didn't say (another attempt to put words in my mouth) that the dramatic turn around was exclusive to drug addicts, etc., etc. The Apostle Paul wasn't a criminal or drug addict BUT he was going in one direction and was turn 180 degrees around in a moment in time which is the definition you had trouble understanding.

You're going around in circles on the resurrection/fact issue. I'm not backing away from my statement, I'm backing away from you characterization of my statement. And it doesn't matter if I'm dealing with an atheist or a believer of another religion, what ultimately sets Christianity apart from other religions are the claims of it's founder, that He is Savior, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Way, Truth and the Life. One of the evidences that His claim is true is the dramatic, life changing experiences of millions of believers, including the Apostle Paul.

I haven't backed off one bit. If Jesus is who He claimed to be then His quoting of Genesis validates it as what the Jews beleived it was, the Word of Almighty God. The Jews of His day recognized His special authority not just because of the miracles He did but they recognized a special authority in His proclaiming the Word of God and expounding on the OT scriptures. The Scribes and Pharisees proclaimed the Word of God but lacked the authority ascribed to Jesus.

I didn't use italics and underlines to give the words more authority but to help you separate my quotes of your statements from my responses. Just trying to help you keep things straight .

Not apples and oranges but clarification. The words speak for themself. Jesus wasn't claiming that Moses was wrong but that divorce isn't what God originally intended when He created man and women. Jesus quotes the reference regarding man and woman in Genesis two referring to God's intention BEFORE the fall and that the accomdation for divorce was giving afterwards because of the hardness of their hearts (a result of the fall).

Genesis one and two are accurate accounts of the creation. Genesis one provides the details of the six days of creation while Genesis two focuses on the creation of man. The creation of man took place on the six day according to Genesis one. Additional details of man's creation on day six are given in Genesis two. It is not a revised, corrected version of Genesis one. There is not contradiction between Genesis one and two with respect to the day (6th) man was created and the only reason this so-called contradiction has been developed is to make Genesis fit the theory of evolution. The interpretational somersaults require to make that work violate the standard rules of interpretation. The same type of twisting of the language if used throughout the Bible corrupt and dilute the message.

As I said before, I don't know how to reconcile the six day creation story with the theory of evolution but I think it's a grave mistake to twist the clear language of the Bible to make them fit.

 

[ElElohe]

Gen 1 and 2 aren't two different stories, they are different perspectives of the same story. I think I've beseeched you before to learn a little more about literary technique before making such judgments.

And who's to say that a bat really isn't a bird; it may be that we've classified it incorrectly!

You just contradicted yourself in a single sentence. You are saying that the Bible is a book of science. The Bible tells us specifically that rabbits chew their cud, camels have a cloven hoof, bats are birds, the seas are behind gates, the earth does not move, there is a crystal firmament above the earth, etc. We don't take those literal. There is a lot of special pleading in those cases, but the special pleading doesn't work.

But this is the crux of the disagreement. We are finally down to it. You want a literal Genesis 1. I say that neither Genesis 1 nor 2 are literal and we can tell that by 1) text and particularly the contradictions between the stories and 2) the evidence God left in His Creation.

In Genesis 1:26-27 several men and women were created in one 24 hour day. Genesis 2 doesn't say anything about the time it took to form Adam from the dust. So, the Bible doesn't say what you say it does . . .

 

[Bushido216]

Are bats born from eggs? No.

 

[ElElohe]

You missed my point.

I don't have a problem with how men have classified and organized things, but I do have a problem with men thinking their understanding is complete or their arrangement the best.

Are bats born from eggs? No.

 

[lucaspa]

Gen 1 and 2 aren't two different stories, they are different perspectives of the same story. I think I've beseeched you before to learn a little more about literary technique before making such judgments.

I've looked at literary techniques and read Biblical scholars versed in literary techniques, the Hebrew language, and the culture of the time. Virtually all Biblical scholars now agree that there are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two creation stories. In the thread "Episcopal bishop letter" we have an Episcopal bishop, over 20 years ago, telling all the congregations in his bishopric this.

Now, if you want to try to argue that they are all wrong, please go ahead.

And who's to say that a bat really isn't a bird; it may be that we've classified it incorrectly!

And how specifically would we have done that? What would lead you to believe that bats are really birds? The fur instead of feathers? The teeth instead of beaks? The mammalian bones instead of avian bones? The different wing structures? The lactation? That bats give live birth and birds lay eggs?

You've broached a hypothesis: bats are really birds and the classification is wrong. Now test it and show how bats are birds.