Would you change your opinion

[lucaspa]

pmh1nic

What you claim and what arguments can and cannot be used depend on the discussion. Let me try one more time to explain what I mean concerning the wham-bam experiences.

Say you are browsing the Apologetics Forum and come across a thread whose OP says:
"There is no evidence for God." or "Show me the evidence for God and Jesus." In that case you use your personal experience and say "I've had this personal experience of the risen Jesus where my life was completely turned around. It's not something I would have done by myself. I've looked at it real hard to see if it was an hallucination or a drug action and I don't think so. Other people have written about similar experiences and here are some references on the Internet. These constitute my eyewitness evidence for the existence of God. The experience is convincing to me, but I understand that it may not be convincing to you because you haven't had it. But it is evidence."

You are fine. You have made a valid argument in response to the claim made.

But let's say that you go to an Islamic, Hindu, Mormon, Moonie, etc forum and start a Topic by saying "I had an experience of Jesus that changed my life dramatically .... Other people have had similar experiences. Only Christianity has people who have had this type of dramatic turn-around of their lives. This is evidence that Christianity is the real religion and yours is a fake."

If you do that you will get all the arguments I have been giving you: personal testimonies that are similar to yours, the argument that slower, less-dramatic relationships with God are also valid, and that your experience may be due to hallucinations and/or changes in your brain chemistry due to drugs. And they will be right. Your claim -- that dramatic turn-arounds validate Christianity over other faiths -- has overreached the evidence you have for it.

 

[pmh1nic]

Correct, there is nothing that is going to change my mind because what I know about God and my relationship with Him is only partially based in things you know with your intellect. It's a knowing and experience of Him that encompasses mind and spirit.

Hold up...you said science isn't separate from God. Science may not be separate from God but it only studies only one aspect of God, what He has created as far as the physical universe is concerned. There is much about God that IS separate from science. And saying God is separate from (different in substance and nature) in no way denies that He created the physical universe.

Now you may want to believe that there is physical evidence that God created man via evolution but the evidence is inconclusive and the concept contradicts what the Bible says about man's special creation.

The Mexican standoff is your insistence on call the "conversions" you sighted dramatic, in a moment of time conversions. They are not described as such but you can interpret them the same way you contrive the meaning of the Genesis account of creation of man to be evolution over millions of years.

Again, you make claims about dramatic conversions in other religions but you provided no testamony of them. In addition Jesus said "I'm am the Way....", the voice from heaven said "this is my beloved Son, hear Him", the Bible says "no man comes to the Father but through Him" and there is "no other name given among men where by we may be saved." Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life, he that believes in ME though he were dead yet shall he live. And whosoever lives and believes in ME shall never die." There reason you can't sight instances of miracles conversions (and I can proved links and references to thousands) is that in is relationship with the risen Christ that conversion and transformation takes place, NOT in accepting the religious teaching of Budda, Mohammad or Joseph Smith.

I didn't make the claim I'm repeating the claim that only Christian (believing in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for my sins). Jesus made the claim and the Apostles repeated it. It is the central theme of the NT.

The were written during the time where many people were alive that were alive during Jesus ministry and there to refute the claims. Both John and Matthew were disciples of Jesus. Luke is a noted historian and your only reason for casting doubts about the authorship is to give you the liberty to twist the meaning of the message and the truths conveyed in this books to make Christian just another religion.

To be continued....

 

[pmh1nic]

Again, it is totally illogical and totally out of character for the writers of the gospels to claim a virgin birth if it didn't take place. Sighting the insanity of Hitler or a misjudgment in a battle during the Civil War has no connection logically or as an issue of character with what we're discussing.

Skeptical is not disbelieving. That my friend is semantic double-speak.

I don't know what dictionaries you're referring to but Strong's Concordance (one of the most exhaustive concordance of the Bible) and the Harris, Archer, Waltke Theoolgical Workbook of the Old Testament both provided meanings of the Hebrew word translated "day" as a 24 hour period of time (as in Genesis One) and a period of time as used in Genesis two. The Genesis 2:2 beyom is properly tranlated "when" in the NIV. I'm not using circular reason, I'm following the clear iinterpretation of the passages based on the words and context. The context and how the word is used in other places in the Bible clarifies which interpretation of the word is appropriate in a particular sentence.

The writer of Genesis didn't know John but John knew the book of Genesis. John knew the book of Genesis account of creation and knew who the Word was that was responsible for that creation. The Godhead is clearly seen in the Genesis one account.

The issue isn't whether there are two creation stories but whether there are contradictions between the two stories. You're tried to create a contradiction where there is none. The Genesis two creation account expounds on certain aspects of the Genesis one account but doesn't contradict the six day creation story. The main focus of Genesis two is the creation of man. The two accounts compliment but don't contradict one another.

The links you provided don't show any discrepancies between the two account but a lack of understanding regarding the main themes in each chapter. Again, the focus of Genesis one is chronological account of creation while the Genesis two account has as it's focus the special creation of man.

And your claim that "today, that conclusion is accepted by virtually all Biblical scholars" is patently false if you mean the conclusion that there are contradictions between the two creation accounts.

"Professor Kenneth Kitchen, who served as Lecturer in the School of Archaeology and Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool, has expressed the matter as follows:

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however the strictly complementary nature of the ‘two’ accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism” (Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Tyndale, 1966, pp. 116-117; emp. in original)."



That's just one voice of opposition to the claim that there are contradictions between the Genesis one and Genesis two account of creation and there are a multitude of others.

"But let's say that you go to an Islamic, Hindu, Mormon, Moonie, etc forum and start a Topic by saying "I had an experience of Jesus that changed my life dramatically .... Other people have had similar experiences. Only Christianity has people who have had this type of dramatic turn-around of their lives. This is evidence that Christianity is the real religion and yours is a fake."

If you do that you will get all the arguments I have been giving you: personal testimonies that are similar to yours, the argument that slower, less-dramatic relationships with God are also valid, and that your experience may be due to hallucinations and/or changes in your brain chemistry due to drugs. And they will be right. Your claim -- that dramatic turn-arounds validate Christianity over other faiths -- has overreached the evidence you have for it."

I disagree because I believe that what sets Christianity apart from other religions is something that goes way beyond a mental assent to a particular religious doctrine or philosophy.

The main focus of the scriptures is the saving grace of God made available to us through Jesus Christ our redeemer. It is the power of God through faith in Jesus Christ (not Budda, Mohammad or Joseph Smith) that reconcils us to God and in that reconciled relationship our lives are transformed. That transformation that I've experienced and many millions of others (many in as dramatic a fashion but not all) is based in a relationship with Jesus Christ and it's something that is not duplicated in any other religion. It is because Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through Him.

This truth isn't something that I would bash a Jew or Muslim or Mormon over the head with but it's the fundamental truth of the Bible and I've experienced the reality of it. It's a truth the Bible claims is not subject to broad interpretation or change. You may claim it's circular reasoning but "He who sits on the circle of the earth" ordained it so the argument of Muslims, Jews, Mormons, etc. isn't with me it's with Him.


​

 

[ej]

Wow - I just have to say that I'm amazed at the results of this poll!

I am currently a creationist and I would not change my mind 31.58%
I am currently a creationist and I would change my mind 10.53%

I am currently an evolutionist and I would not change my mind 7.02%
I am currently an evolutionist and I would change my mind.50.88%

So basically:

Of the Creationists, 75% would NOT change their mind, 25% would.
Of the Evolutionists, 12% would not change their mind, whilst 88% would.

 

[ej]

Here is the Catholic Church's stance on the issue:

"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159).

 

[lucaspa]

Correct, there is nothing that is going to change my mind because what I know about God and my relationship with Him is only partially based in things you know with your intellect. It's a knowing and experience of Him that encompasses mind and spirit.

But there seems to be nothing that will cause you to question your experience. That is, we find a genuine document written by the disciples that says that Jesus' "resurrection" was a hoax. This won't cause you to question your experiences? Personally, I don't think such a document will be found, but we are dealing in hypotheticals.

Hold up...you said science isn't separate from God. Science may not be separate from God but it only studies only one aspect of God, what He has created as far as the physical universe is concerned.

Right, but what was your statement? Here, let me refresh you memory:
There is nothing science can provide as evidence that will convince me that man isn't a product of special creation and not the result of macro-evolutionary change (man from monkeys).
You were talking about the aspect of God that science does study: the physical universe and what God has created -- us. The evidence is not "science can provide". If God really created, the evidence is "God provides". If God really created, then all the evidence in the physical universe you associated with "science can provide" is actually from God, isn't it?

Now you may want to believe that there is physical evidence that God created man via evolution but the evidence is inconclusive and the concept contradicts what the Bible says about man's special creation.

The evidence is conclusive. From comparative morphology and physiology to genetics to a complete set of transitional indifiduals connecting us -- H. sapiens -- back to H. erectus and from H. erectus to H. hablis and from H. habilis to A. afarensis. I've compiled a partial list of these fossils. Would you care to take a look? Considering the rarity of series of transitional individuals, the one in our particular lineage is like God shouting "I did it by evolution!"

What is contradicted is your literal interpretation of what the Bible says. Not what the Bible really says. Sorry, but you are not the Bible. And the Bible is not God.

The Mexican standoff is your insistence on call the "conversions" you sighted dramatic, in a moment of time conversions.

And some of them were. I gave you those and you haven't addressed them. Also, remember that I have heard individual stories from Muslims and Mormons. Remember, we have a guy entering a monastery as Christian, staying there for a year, and then within the space of days emerging as Muslim. That would be a very dramatic, in a moment of time conversion.

In addition Jesus said "I'm am the Way....", the voice from heaven said "this is my beloved Son, hear Him", the Bible says "no man comes to the Father but through Him" and there is "no other name given among men where by we may be saved." Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life, he that believes in ME though he were dead yet shall he live. And whosoever lives and believes in ME shall never die."

Let's take these in order. The first two are what we believe as Christians. We believe these things happened. As to the rest, have you ever thought that they are simply organization charts? Yes, we believe that the Muslim comes to God thru Jesus, whether the Muslim thinks he is going thru Mohammed or not. Similarly, the Hindu comes to the Father thru Jesus, even if he thinks it is Shiva.

There reason you can't sight instances of miracles conversions (and I can proved links and references to thousands) is that in is relationship with the risen Christ that conversion and transformation takes place, NOT in accepting the religious teaching of Budda, Mohammad or Joseph Smith.

You just blew it. Remember, in the case of Joseph Smith and Mormonism, they also have a relationship with the risen Christ! And their dramatic conversions happen because it is a transformation by the risen Christ! So, it shows that you are not really paying attention to what people in other religions are saying. You can't say what does or does not happen when you really have made no effort to find out what happens!

I didn't make the claim I'm repeating the claim that only Christian (believing in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for my sins). Jesus made the claim and the Apostles repeated it. It is the central theme of the NT.

Waht's the claim? That only Christians can get to heaven? Or that you have to have a dramatic, instantaneous experience of Jesus to be a real Christian? I hope it is you making the second claim. Because you are saying that every Christian that came to Jesus thru a gradual process hasn't really come to Jesus. Do you mean to say that? If not, and you grant the validity of that gradual process for them, then you can't deny the validity of a gradual process for any other faith, can you? You can think they are mistaken, but you can't deny the validity of the experience.

In terms of the first claim, I find it ironic that Jesus was very inclusive of everyone. He taught that anyone could come to God. So was Paul, making Christianity not just a tribal religion but open to anyone. Yet ever since some Christians seem very intenct on making Christianity exclusive and keeping everyone away from God except themselves. I submit that this exclusivity is the exact opposite of the NT message. Yes, you can come to God thru Jesus. That is an assured path. But the corollary -- that no other path leads to God -- is a perversion of the message.

The were written during the time where many people were alive that were alive during Jesus ministry and there to refute the claims.

Sorry, but all the gospels were written long after the ministry. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, was written after 70 AD -- 36 years after the crucifixion. The rest are even later, with John being after 100 AD. I know tradition says that John and Matthew were disciples and wrote those gospels, but the books with their names were not authored by them.

Luke is a noted historian and your only reason for casting doubts about the authorship is to give you the liberty to twist the meaning of the message and the truths conveyed in this books to make Christian just another religion.

Again you question my motives without justification. Biblical scholars have determined the authorship of the gospels long before I came along. Remember, we are discussing your arguments, not whether Christianity is true or not. That isn't open for discussion here. The issue is whether your "proofs" of the truth of Christianity are in fact "proofs". Your proofs can be wrong without Christianity being wrong. Do you see the difference between the truth of the "proofs" and the truth of Christianity?

What this comes down to is tolerance vs intolerance. When people claim Truth with a capital "T" without the proof of truth, we always end up with repression and violence. God knows Christianity has had more than its share of such violence and intolerance in the past. I can't see that the Prince of Peace would be pleased. So, if I am pointing out the flaws in your "proof", it is only to keep you from desecrating Christianity and Jesus' teaching with a new wave of intolerance and violence.

 

[lucaspa]

Again, it is totally illogical and totally out of character for the writers of the gospels to claim a virgin birth if it didn't take place. Sighting the insanity of Hitler or a misjudgment in a battle during the Civil War has no connection logically or as an issue of character with what we're discussing.

1. I gave you the logical reasons why the gospels would claim a virgin birth if it didn't take place. You blew by them and never answered them.
2. The part about Hitler and the Union soldiers at Fredericksburg came about from a different claim of yours. Here it is again:
No Mexican stand-off. It is absolutely illogical to think that these men would forfeit there lives for something the KNEW was a farce, Well, the men of II Corps knew it was a farce to try to take the stone wall at Fredericksburg, yet they forfeited their lives anyway. Similarly, some of Hitler's writings indicate that he was aware that his racism was a farce, but he followed the path to his own death anyway. Certainly, many of the German soldiers knew that Hitler's idea of an Aryan race and his racism against the Jews were untrue and a farce. Their diaries and letters prove it. Yet they forfeited their lives anyway. I'd say it is very logically connected to what you claimed.

Skeptical is not disbelieving. That my friend is semantic double-speak.

Being skeptical is having doubts. Disbelieving is believing the opposite. Thus, the two are very different.

I don't know what dictionaries you're referring to but Strong's Concordance (one of the most exhaustive concordance of the Bible) and the Harris, Archer, Waltke Theoolgical Workbook of the Old Testament both provided meanings of the Hebrew word translated "day" as a 24 hour period of time (as in Genesis One) and a period of time as used in Genesis two. The Genesis 2:2 beyom is properly tranlated "when" in the NIV.

Strong's Concordance lists yom at http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03117&version=kjv

But, in translating Genesis 2:4b, it says "in the day" http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=ge&number=03117&count=139&version=kjv

That is the prefix "be" on "yom". Yes, you can translate "beyom" as "when", but the meaning is not 6 days, but a "when" that happens immediately. "When" itself is very vague in English, but "beyom" is not vague in Hebrew. BTW, Genesis 2:4a is translated "when".

I'm not using circular reason, I'm following the clear iinterpretation of the passages based on the words and context. The context and how the word is used in other places in the Bible clarifies which interpretation of the word is appropriate in a particular sentence.

The "context" is circular reasoning, not the context of the text. Your "context" is that you have a 6 day creation, so that you are trying to make Genesis 2 match Genesis 1 because you say Genesis 2 has to match Genesis 1. But the very issue is that Genesis 2 does not match Genesis 1, so you can't use the "match" to say they do match. Do you see?

The writer of Genesis didn't know John but John knew the book of Genesis. John knew the book of Genesis account of creation and knew who the Word was that was responsible for that creation. The Godhead is clearly seen in the Genesis one account.

I'm afraid not. Are you saying that John fashioned the godhead to match Genesis? Also, remember that Trinity was not invented until about 300 AD. So John didn't have the Trinity godhead.

The issue isn't whether there are two creation stories but whether there are contradictions between the two stories. You're tried to create a contradiction where there is none. The Genesis two creation account expounds on certain aspects of the Genesis one account but doesn't contradict the six day creation story.

Sure it contradicts. Birds are created on day 5 in Genesis 1. Land animals are made before people on day 6 in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 both are made after Adam. Can't have a much clearer contradiction. I'm not trying to "make" one; I'm pointing out a contradiction that you don't want to see because it blows your literal interpretation. Remember, I'm not the only one to see the contradiction and people saw it long before evolution came along.

The links you provided don't show any discrepancies between the two account but a lack of understanding regarding the main themes in each chapter.

The links were only given to show you how many Christians have accepted that there are 2 separate creation accounts. They were never meant to give you the details of why people thought they were.

Again, the focus of Genesis one is chronological account of creation while the Genesis two account has as it's focus the special creation of man.

But there is also a chronology in Genesis 2, and it doesn't match that in Genesis 1.

And your claim that "today, that conclusion is accepted by virtually all Biblical scholars" is patently false if you mean the conclusion that there are contradictions between the two creation accounts.

(Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Tyndale, 1966, pp. 116-117; emp. in original)."

That's as of 1966. Think the situation may have changed since then? Yes, virtually all.

lucaspa: "But let's say that you go to an Islamic, Hindu, Mormon, Moonie, etc forum and start a Topic by saying "I had an experience of Jesus that changed my life dramatically .... Other people have had similar experiences. Only Christianity has people who have had this type of dramatic turn-around of their lives. This is evidence that Christianity is the real religion and yours is a fake."
If you do that you will get all the arguments I have been giving you: personal testimonies that are similar to yours, the argument that slower, less-dramatic relationships with God are also valid, and that your experience may be due to hallucinations and/or changes in your brain chemistry due to drugs. And they will be right. Your claim -- that dramatic turn-arounds validate Christianity over other faiths -- has overreached the evidence you have for it."

I disagree because I believe that what sets Christianity apart from other religions is something that goes way beyond a mental assent to a particular religious doctrine or philosophy.

What I demonstrated is that "facts" are interpreted within different claims/hypotheses. By themselves, "facts" don't tell you anything. Thus, the "fact" of your experience does not tell us anything of itself. Even to get what you think it means we have to have a claim and interpretation.

However, to your claim that dramatic conversions somehow show the validity of Christianoity or "sets it apart.", I refer above to all the arguments I've used before and which you don't answer. Perhaps Christians are the only ones, when drugs alter brain chemistry, integrate their new brain chemistry into Christianity.

Tell us something, please. Were you ever exposed to Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism before you started drinking and using drugs? Were you exposed to Christianity?

You can see where I am going. When you had the experience, you had no other context to put it in. So you put it in the only context you could -- Christianity. Maybe it was Allah that changed your mind but since you refuse to even read the Quran, Allah can't get totally thru to you.

You haven't really tried to find dramatic experiences in other religions, have you?

The main focus of the scriptures is the saving grace of God made available to us through Jesus Christ our redeemer. It is the power of God through faith in Jesus Christ (not Budda, Mohammad or Joseph Smith) that reconcils us to God and in that reconciled relationship our lives are transformed.

That is what Christians believe. However, for the other religions (except Mormonism which does believe in Jeus, after all -- you blew it again) God doesn't act thru Jesus, but directly transforming lives. They still claim transformation.

That transformation that I've experienced and many millions of others (many in as dramatic a fashion but not all) is based in a relationship with Jesus Christ and it's something that is not duplicated in any other religion.

Well, since they don't have Jesus, this is moot. However, instead of a relationship with Jesus, believers of other religions have a relationship with God directly. But since Jesus is an aspect of God, then it is duplicated but under a different name. A rose by any other name ...

It is because Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through Him.

Here we have the exclusivity again. Trying to exclude others from God. When Jesus spent so much time stressing inclusivity and others coming to God, whether they were Jews or Christians. I'm so sad to see Jesus' teachings desecrated this way.

This truth isn't something that I would bash a Jew or Muslim or Mormon over the head with

Then what's the point? You just like to pick fights with fellow Christians? The only reason for making the claim is to "bash a Jew or Muslim or Mormon" over the head with it.

it's the fundamental truth of the Bible and I've experienced the reality of it.

I think you've had an experience you firmly believe is from Jesus. But when that experience leads you to contradict Jesus' teachings like this, then I begin to have doubts about it I did not have before.

You may claim it's circular reasoning but "He who sits on the circle of the earth" ordained it so the argument of Muslims, Jews, Mormons, etc. isn't with me it's with Him.

It's with you. And your interpretation. I find it supremely ironic that you would quote a verse that is so contradicted by God. The earth is not a circle, but a ball. It's your interpretation that the verses are exclusive. My interpretation is that they are inclusive. And, of course, you have conveniently forgotten (?) or ignored (?) the verse that says "In my father's house are many rooms, if it were not so I would have told you." I interpret that as saying that God has many rooms/religions. Yes, Christianity is one way to get to God, but it isn't the only way to get there.
[/QUOTE]

 

[TwinCrier]

Since I don't base my belief on science, it would not make sense for me to change my view based on "some piece of scientific evidence." Nor would I expect an evolutionist to be swayed by some piece of biblical evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

"In 1997 my fiancée had given me the Quran as a gift, simply because I loved to read. Just to show you how much I hated the Muslims...Well when she gave me the Quran it caused a fight between us and we had separated for quite some time. Eventually I had picked it up and began reading it. I can remember that very day. The house was crystal clean, the air was soft and sweet and the lighting was dim and perfect for reading. It was the translation from Abdullah Yusuf Ali. I read his introduction, the first 3 pages, and I began to cry like a baby. I cried and cried and I couldn't help myself. I knew that this was what I was looking for and I wanted to beat myself to death for not finding it earlier." http://www.islamfortoday.com/farrell.htm

"In my church we were not allowed to pray to God, we could only pray to Jesus and hope that he would relay the message to God. I had intuitively felt that there was something wrong with that and so, without telling anyone, I secretly prayed to "God." ... In one class we studied the Qur'an. I opened the Qur'an one night to "do my homework" and could not stop reading it. It was like I had picked up a good novel. I thought to myself, "Wow. This is great. This is what I have always believed. This answers all my questions about how to act during the week and it even states very clearly that there is only one God." " http://www.islamfortoday.com/karimaburns.htm

"

Never mind. I'll get right to work on this guy. He needs to be 'saved' and me and the Lord are going to do it. So, after a quick introduction, I asked him:
​

"Do you believe in God?" He said: "Yes." (Good!) Then I said: "Do you believe in Adam and Eve?" He said: "Yes." I said: "What about Abraham? You believe in him and how he tried to sacrifice his son for God?" He said: "Yes." Then I asked: "What about Moses?" Again he said: "Yes." Then: "What about the other prophets, David, Solomon and John the Baptist?" He said: "Yes." I asked: "Do you believe in the Bible?" Again, he said: "Yes." So, now it was time for the big question: "Do you believe in Jesus? That he was the Christ of God?" Again the said: "Yes."
​

Well, now, this was going to be easier than I had thought. He was just about ready to be baptized only he didn't know it. And I was just the one to do it, too. I was winning souls to the Lord day after day and this would be a big achievement for me, to catch one of these 'Moslems' and 'convert' him to Christianity. ...
​

A few more days went by and the Catholic priest asked Mohamed if he might join him again for a trip to the mosque which they did. But this time it was different. They did not come back for a very long time. It became dark and we worried that something might have happened to them. Finally they arrived and when they came in the door I immediately recognized Mohamed, but who was this alongside of him? Someone wearing a white robe and a white cap. Hold on a minute! It was the priest. I said to him: "Pete? -- Did you become a 'Moslem?' He said that he had entered into Islam that very day. THE PRIEST BECAME A MUSLIM!! What next? (You'll see). ... I went downstairs and woke up Mohamed and asked him to come outside with me for a discussion. We walked and talked that whole night through. By the time he was ready to pray Fajr (the morning prayer of the Muslims) I knew that the truth had come at last and now it was up to me to do my part. I went out back behind my father's house and found an old piece of plywood lying under an overhang and right there I put my head down on the ground facing the direction that the Muslims pray five times a day.
​

Now then in that position, with my body stretched out on the plywood and my head on the ground, I asked: "O God. If you are there, guide me, guide me." And then after a while I raised up my head and I noticed something. No, I didn't see birds or angels coming out of the sky nor did I hear voices or music, nor did I see bright lights and flashes. What I did notice was a change inside of me. I was aware now more than ever before that it was time for me to stop lying and cheating and doing sneaky business deals. It was time that I really work at being an honest and upright man. I knew now what I had to do. So I went upstairs and took a shower with the distinct idea that I was 'washing' away the sinful old person that I had become over the years. And I was now coming into a new, fresh life. A life based on truth and proof." http://www.islamfortoday.com/yusufestes.htm​

Sounds transforming to me!​

"I participated in regular assaults on people and engaged in various criminal activities. At 16, I found myself incarcerated serving a 6 1/2 year sentence in the California Youth Authority for robbery, assault and weapons charges. Immediately I feel in step with the gangs of "white supremacy" and cultivated my rage and anger into pure "Hate" of all people who were not "Anglo Saxon." ... I took part in possession of explosives and was arrested by the federal government and sentenced to 35 months in federal prison. ... This brother invited me to Jumu'ah service, I was given a Quran, and as I read the translation I felt the purity of it, and the truth of it. There was no hocus-pocus, no spookism, no mysticism, just plain, simple understanding "Truth." When I heard the Adhan (the call to prayer) I felt a closeness to God that penetrated my heart and soul. " http://www.islamfortoday.com/sipes.htm​

There are many other stories like these. Instead of a transformation from encountering the risen Christ, many converts have their transformation from the first contact with the Quran. Again, a rose by any other name ...​

 

[pmh1nic]

Your hypothetical "suppose" we find "genuine" documents is presupposing way too much. How are we to "prove" these documents are genuine? What method is there to prove these documents over the documents we already have regarding the validate of the resurrection.

No refresher needed. Science studies the properties and make-up the physical universe but it can only guess at how these things were created. Science also doesn't take into consideration the possibility of the supernature with respect to the origins of man. Science looks for a physical answer to the question of origins apart from the supernatural. Since science limits itself to natural causes by definition it cannot come to the determination of a supernatural cause.

The evidence is absolutely NOT conclusive. We don't call it the law of evolution we call it the theory of evolution. In spite of what you may want to believe there isn't universal agreement regarding macroevolution within the scientific community.

My orthodoxy interpretation of the Bible using the standard means of translation and interpretation contradicts the macroevolutionary origins of man.

Your links to testamonies regarding Muslim and Mormon "conversion" were not the type of in a moment transformations I posted. But if you want to continue presenting them as such be my guest. Faith in the saving grace of God found in Jesus only is the power that transform broken lives in a moment of time. You can try to manufacture a substitute but Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

And the reality of that DOESN'T depend on you or I believing it. That truth is separate from us. It is faith in Him that brings life and light into our lives. It is in coming to the knowledge of that Truth that produces faith unto salvation.

Neither Islam or Mormonism accept the teaching of redemption through the sacrifical death of Jesus Christ as full redemption for our sins. I didn't "blow it". You need to brush up on your understand of Mormon doctrine regarding the person of Jesus Christ and their theology regarding the way of salvation.

Many Biblical historians date the Gospel of Mark around 50 ~ 60 A.D. while others feel strongly that the latest date would be before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. And it is a small minority of Biblical "scholars" that make the claim that Matthew and even fewer that discount the Apostle John as the authors of the gospel bearing their names. But when someone wants to refute the validate of the statements in a document it of course helps to cast doubt regarding its authorship. Your motivation to accept the claims of the few in the theological community that make counter claims about the authorship and timing of the writing (rather than the overwhelm body of Biblical scholars that validate the conventional authorship and timing) is over course to support your need to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Biblical account of creation so that you can generate an interpretation that conforms with the theory of macroevolution.

You gave reasons for being skeptical about the virgin birth but they were far from logical with respect to any line of logical reasoning based in an understanding of human nature.

According to Strong's Concordance, Harris's Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, the scholars involved in translating the NIV, Vine's Expositor Dictionary of Old and New Testament Word, beyom can be accurately translate to mean an indefinite period of time (when) and doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour day. And given the context in this case it clearly does NOT mean a 24 hour day in the verse we've been discussing in Genesis two.

The context isn't just Genesis one or Genesis two. The context for understand the use of the word is the whole Old Testament. The words used aren't standing alone. They are two be understood based on their usage throughout the text and in there particular context.

The idea of the Godhead was around long before the word trinity was developed to describe it. John knew the Genesis account of creation, he understood the concept of the Godhead and he expressed something of that understanding in the first chapter of his gospel.

Not a whole lot has changed since 1966 among those that follow the standard means of translation and interpretation of the Biblical passages we're discussing. It's only among those that feel force by the current understand of science to try to reconcil the creation account in the Bible that these revised means of words is necessarily. This is something that a cursory web search would reveal to you.

What I was or wasn't exposed to is a diversion. Jesus made claims about Himself that were either true or make Him to be a liar or lunatic. He didn't say I'm one of the ways to the Father, he claimed to be the ONLY way. My experience and the dramatic transformation He made in my life (the only life I have) is the fact that convinces me that He is who He claimed to be and any others that make the same claim about themselves or their way are what He claim they were; counterfeits.

I don't get "in the face" of people about this but since we've been having a frank conversation I'm saying it as I believe it and frankly as Jesus spoke it. He said that anyone that claimed there was another way of reconcilation with the Father, some other means of salvation was walking in darkness.

The Bible doesn't leave room for many ways to God. Jesus said those that rejected Him (I'm not talking about those that have never heard about Him) would be rejected. I'm saying this to you, someone that claims to have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, because your acceptance that there are "other" ways or that somehow following Islam or Mormonism can somehow be unknowingly following Christ is NOT something taught in the Bible. On the contrary it's denying the exclusive nature of the plan of salvation.

No irony. The writer was not writing this with a view towards a technical term. The same word can be translated circle or ball (Strong's). Another word is translated ball and can means motion in a circular pattern. The earth viewed from a distance, out in space loses it's three dimensional appearance, just like the moon does from our perspective.

Your intpretation of Jesus "many rooms" is also in stark contradiction of what Jesus preached and ignors the direct context in which it is made.

Again, your conversion links show a change of mind about religion and in some cases you can take a gradual experience and point to a moment when that view is finally accepted. But what you've given as examples are simply a mental assent to some type of religious doctrine. What they don't describe is a dramatic turn around in walk of life, in disposition, in character and in attitude. I don't see a breaking of bondage to sin or immoral lifestyle. I don't see the dynamic power that changed the life of a drug addict, criminal, womanizer and unbeliever. It's not there. And one of the reasons it's not there is because that power (along with the eternal salvation that comes with it) only comes via the power of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

The "Rose" has only one name .... Jesus Christ. "There is no other name given among men where by we may be saved." Not my word, His Word. He is the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." The voice from heaven said "hear HIM."

 

[lucaspa]

Since I don't base my belief on science, it would not make sense for me to change my view based on "some piece of scientific evidence." Nor would I expect an evolutionist to be swayed by some piece of biblical evidence.

1. We aren't talking about belief in God. But rather ideas on how God created. Would you change your mind on how God created? From 144 hours in the last 10,000 years to a 4.55 billion year old earth and the diversity of life rising by evolution.
2. What piece of Biblical evidence could you introduce into a scientific discussion? Remember, Creation Science can supposedly be inferred from the scientific evidence alone without reference to the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

Your hypothetical "suppose" we find "genuine" documents is presupposing way too much. How are we to "prove" these documents are genuine? What method is there to prove these documents over the documents we already have regarding the validate of the resurrection.

Duck! Just suppose. Think of anything you want that would show the document to be genuine. IF we had it, would you reconsider your position? I think you know that you would have to, but don't want to admit it. Thus the duck.

No refresher needed. Science studies the properties and make-up the physical universe but it can only guess at how these things were created.

Depends on which things you are talking about. If you are talking zebras, then yes, we can know how they were created. Same with planets and galaxies. In terms of the elements heavier than helium, again we can know how they were created -- nucleosynthesis in stars (and fusion bombs).

Science also doesn't take into consideration the possibility of the supernature with respect to the origins of man. Science looks for a physical answer to the question of origins apart from the supernatural. Since science limits itself to natural causes by definition it cannot come to the determination of a supernatural cause.

Science does too take into account the possibility of the supernatural with respect to the origins of man. Paul, that was the accepted scientific theory of how humans originated up until 1860. Remember, Creation Science says we can come to the determination of a supernatural cause for the Flood. ID says we can come to the conclusion of a supernatural cause for the complexity of life! It's not that science can't consider the supernatural, but that so far the methods by which the supernatural is supposed to have worked -- instantaneous formation in present form -- haven't panned out as the methods by which the supernatural worked!

The evidence is absolutely NOT conclusive. We don't call it the law of evolution we call it the theory of evolution. In spite of what you may want to believe there isn't universal agreement regarding macroevolution within the scientific community.

Laws are not "proven" theories. Laws and theories are two different things. From the National Academy of Science:
"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances."
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html

See? Theories don't grow up to be laws, but contain laws as part of the theory. For instance, evolution contains the laws of genetics worked out by Mendel, Hardy-Weinberg Law, Cope's Rule (law), Haldane's Rule (law) and others.

The evidence is absolutely conclusive that creationism is false. Creationism has false consequences, in all its forms. Since true statements can't have false consequences, then creationism is false. And yes, there is unanimity among the scientific community on evolution -- descent with modification via natural selection. The dissenters are less than 0.01% of the community, and you can find 0.01% of any group that holds just about any crackpot idea you care to name.

My orthodoxy interpretation of the Bible using the standard means of translation and interpretation contradicts the macroevolutionary origins of man.

You aren't using the standard rules of interpretation. These rules are found here:
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

You aren't using Rule of Historical Background or the Rule of Unity. So you are artificially setting up a conflict of God vs God. God can only lose in such a contest. Why do you want to do that?

Your links to testamonies regarding Muslim and Mormon "conversion" were not the type of in a moment transformations I posted. But if you want to continue presenting them as such be my guest. Faith in the saving grace of God found in Jesus only is the power that transform broken lives in a moment of time. You can try to manufacture a substitute but Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Read my post where I quote transformations. As I said, the transformation comes from the Quran. However, it is equivalent. Jesus is the Word. Well, according to Muslims, the Quran is the Word -- direct dictated word -- of Allah.

Neither Islam or Mormonism accept the teaching of redemption through the sacrifical death of Jesus Christ as full redemption for our sins. I didn't "blow it". You need to brush up on your understand of Mormon doctrine regarding the person of Jesus Christ and their theology regarding the way of salvation.

Mormonism does. They accept that part of the theology.

Many Biblical historians date the Gospel of Mark around 50 ~ 60 A.D. while others feel strongly that the latest date would be before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

That's a generation beyond the death of the living Jesus. Up to 37 years later. Since 37 is the average lifespan then, it is doubtful that any of the original disciples were alive.

And it is a small minority of Biblical "scholars" that make the claim that Matthew and even fewer that discount the Apostle John as the authors of the gospel bearing their names.

Please document that. Among published Biblical scholars, none of them I can find goes for Matthew and John being the authors of those gospels. After all, Matthew uses Q. If Matthew were a disciple, why would he use Q?

Your motivation to accept the claims of the few in the theological community that make counter claims about the authorship and timing of the writing (rather than the overwhelm body of Biblical scholars that validate the conventional authorship and timing) is over course to support your need to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Biblical account of creation so that you can generate an interpretation that conforms with the theory of macroevolution.

Uh, the gospels have nothing to do with the Biblical account of creation! Once again you attack my motives instead of the evidence. In this case, the charge is patently absurd since the authorship of the gospels has nothing to do with the Genesis accounts of creation.

You gave reasons for being skeptical about the virgin birth but they were far from logical with respect to any line of logical reasoning based in an understanding of human nature.

You tried to pass off an untruth as true in order to make an argument for the existence of God, remember? You tried to tell me, as true, that the First Law of Thermodynamics forbade getting a universe from nothing. It doesn't. The statement is untrue. So, why did you try to pass off an untruth as true? Sort thru the answer to that one and you will be a lot closer to why the gospel authors may have done so. In the meantime, read this chapter for a more elegant discussion about doubts about the Virgin Birth:
http://n4m.org/book/view/18
http://n4m.org/book/view/19
http://n4m.org/book/view/20

 

[lucaspa]

According to Strong's Concordance, Harris's Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, the scholars involved in translating the NIV, Vine's Expositor Dictionary of Old and New Testament Word, beyom can be accurately translate to mean an indefinite period of time (when) and doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour day.

You blew it again. Strong's is online. And Strong's doesn't address "beyom" at all! The others you mentioned say the same thing: "yom" can be an indefinite period of time. However, we are not dealing with "yom" alone in Genesis 2:4b:
"Eleh toledot hashamayim veha'arets behibare'am beyom asot Adonay Elohim erets veshamayim. These are the chronicles of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day God completed earth and heaven." http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?ACTION=displayid&id=35

""B" in Hebrew is the preposition "in" and is applied as a prefix to nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs to denote the location of the item or action in question. It is NOT the definite article which, in Hebrew, is "H."
The word "YoM" (yod holem mem) means "day." It CAN have the idiomatic meaning of "period of time," as in the NIV's rednering of Genesis 2:4b as "when." However, literally, it means "day." Attaching the prepositional prefix to it doesn't, in any way, change the meaning the word; it DOES make specific the intention: not "by the day" or "before the day" or "after the day" but "IN the day." The literal meaning is: "In the day, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." The NRSV translates this rather literally, while the NIV renders it idiomatically as: "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...." Both DO say the same thing, for in Hebraic idiomatic usage they frequently would say "in the day" when their meaning was "when."" Rev. Gregory Neal, www.revneal.org

The context isn't just Genesis one or Genesis two. The context for understand the use of the word is the whole Old Testament. The words used aren't standing alone. They are two be understood based on their usage throughout the text and in there particular context.

Now you are bending the words to your meaning. However, in the context of the whole OT, when we find "beyom" it means a period of time within a day. In fact, it means "immediately". See Genesis 2:17 for one example. That "die in the same day" is also "beyom"

The idea of the Godhead was around long before the word trinity was developed to describe it. John knew the Genesis account of creation, he understood the concept of the Godhead and he expressed something of that understanding in the first chapter of his gospel.

That's the later interpretation of those words. However, it wasnt' the universal interpretation. For instance, Arius had quite a different interpretation of the first chapter of John. Look up the history of Trinity. It wasn't proposed until long after the Bible, and then there was a huge fight lasting 150 years over whether it was correct or not.

Not a whole lot has changed since 1966 among those that follow the standard means of translation and interpretation of the Biblical passages we're discussing.

LOL! Translation: put your head in the sand and ignore everything going on around you.

It's only among those that feel force by the current understand of science to try to reconcil the creation account in the Bible that these revised means of words is necessarily. This is something that a cursory web search would reveal to you.

The cursory search (of which I gave you some references) shows clearly that the idea of two separate creation stories has been around since 1680! Long before the "current understand of science" and during 150 years when people still thought humans were specially created! Denying the data isn't going to help the discussion or increase your understanding, Paul

What I was or wasn't exposed to is a diversion.

Not in this context. You are claiming that your wham-bang experience was of Jesus. The question arises: what was your earlier background? If your earlier background was Christian then it can be claimed that you interpreted your experience in terms of Jesus whether it was or not. If your background had been Islam, would you have interpreted it as Allah and not Jesus? That you try to side-step the issue shows that it is valid.

Jesus made claims about Himself that were either true or make Him to be a liar or lunatic. He didn't say I'm one of the ways to the Father, he claimed to be the ONLY way.

You interpret one of his sayings as that. I have given an alternative interpretation and another verse that seems to say that Jesus may not be the only way. Now, the claims Jesus made about himself are very modest in the 3 synoptic gospels. He claims to be the "son of Man". We don't know exactly what that is. At the time, that may have been a very explicit statement and we've lost the context. But neither the Bible nor any of the Jewish writings give us an explicit or specific definition.

Now, the claims about Jesus make him to be either a liar or lunatic. The gospel of John is different. In it Jesus says several times that he is God. But this is the latest of the gospels and we must consider the possibility that the claims about Jesus by others are now being put in the mouth of Jesus by the author. IOW, circular reasoning.

My experience and the dramatic transformation He made in my life (the only life I have) is the fact that convinces me that He is who He claimed to be and any others that make the same claim about themselves or their way are what He claim they were; counterfeits.

Fine. As long as you limit that conviction to you you are fine. Where you get into trouble is taking evidence that is only available to you and trying to say that it is universal and thus, that other religions are absolutely false. I understand you are convinced, and I haven't tried to unconvince you. What I continue to try to do is have you see the limitations of your experience applied to others. People regard experiences that they share as being the valid ones. Yours is shared among a very small portion of the population and can't be used outside that circle as the conclusive proof you desire. Just as those detailing the transforming power of the Quran can't use that outside their circle as conclusive proof of Islam.

He said that anyone that claimed there was another way of reconcilation with the Father, some other means of salvation was walking in darkness.

I don't get that at all. Jesus was very inclusive in his ministry. He reached out to everyone, even intimating in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that Samaritans (who were considered beyond the pale by Jews) were saved. You are trying to make Christianity very exclusive, and I think that is wrong. In fact, it embarrasses me as a Christian to have you going so contrary to what Jesus taught. You talk about the "whole Bible" when you speak about Genesis 2:4, but when it comes to this you focus only on one saying! Can't you see the internal inconsistency?

The Bible doesn't leave room for many ways to God. Jesus said those that rejected Him (I'm not talking about those that have never heard about Him) would be rejected. I'm saying this to you, someone that claims to have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, because your acceptance that there are "other" ways or that somehow following Islam or Mormonism can somehow be unknowingly following Christ is NOT something taught in the Bible. On the contrary it's denying the exclusive nature of the plan of salvation.

Well, it's nice to see you admitting that you are trying to make Christianity exclusive (the last sentence). I'm just not buying it. I think inclusivity is taught in the gospels. Remember that house with many rooms? There are different ways of "rejecting" Jesus. Simply not acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior isn't enough. After all, you can acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior and still not be saved because you don't follow him and minister to the sick, poor, and those in prison. Matt 25:31-46. Also Matthew 7:1-5, Mat 13: 37-43 for what is not there -- exclusivity. Finally, we have Matt 22:34-40. Heeding the Golden Rule doesn't depend on accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. So I don't see why anyone who does would be rejected from the Kingdom.

I wonder if it makes some people feel superior to think they belong to a special group. Perhaps that is the source of this tendency to drive Christianity away from the inclusiveness of Jesus into a very exclusive club where everyone can congratulate themselves on being members. I may be silly, but I don't want to belong to such a self-righteous club as that.

No irony. The writer was not writing this with a view towards a technical term. The same word can be translated circle or ball (Strong's). Another word is translated ball and can means motion in a circular pattern.

Check the Strong's again. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02329&version=kjv The word cannot mean "ball". Again, you try to pass off an untruth as truth. Why do you do that?

The earth viewed from a distance, out in space loses it's three dimensional appearance, just like the moon does from our perspective.

LOL! Now look who is using extrabiblical evidence to interpret the Bible and change the "plain reading"! This is the recent understanding of science, but you say we aren't supposed to change the Bible because of that! And yet here you do it when you want to! What this means, Paul, is that you don't want, for whatever reason, to accept the extrabiblical evidence to cause us to re-interpret Genesis 1-3. However, a plain reading of the verse doesn't have God out in space: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;" See, "he that sitteth upon" Not far away, but upon.

Your intpretation of Jesus "many rooms" is also in stark contradiction of what Jesus preached and ignors the direct context in which it is made.

Nice assertion. Care to explain how it is in contrast? As I said, Jesus preached an inclusive ministry -- and tried to include everyone. His disciples ranged from collaborators and tax collectors to terrorists. He preached forgiveness and love from God, but you want to cast people into the outer dark if they are not Christian.

I don't see a breaking of bondage to sin or immoral lifestyle. I don't see the dynamic power that changed the life of a drug addict, criminal, womanizer and unbeliever.

Read the quotes. It's there. A racist to a lover of all peoples. A born again Christian to a Muslim. A criminal to a model citizen. Now you are simply into denial.

"There is no other name given among men where by we may be saved." Not my word, His Word.

Whose word? Jesus'? No. Even so, are you sure you aren't dealing with a corporate organization chart?

 

[lucaspa]

John 14:1-4 "Do not be worried and upset," Jesus told them. "Believe in God and believe also in me. In my Father's house are many places of abode: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And after I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you myself, so that you will be where I am. You know the way that leads to the place where I am going."

14:15-17 "If you love me, you will obey my commandments. I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, who will stay with you forever. He is the Spirit, who reveals the truth about God. The world cannot receive him, because it cannot see him or know him. But you know him, because he remains with you and is in you."

 

[pmh1nic]

Since we're having difficult with the situation as it is let's not confuse and obscure with hypotheticals.

Sorry, science doesn't ultimately know where zebras come from it can only speculate on their ultimate origin and that speculation by definition is limited to natural versus supernatural cause. What you call "science" in the 1800's is not what's considered science today. Science deals with what can be directly observed, measure and repeatly tested, it doesn't deal with the supernatural so by definition science ignors supernatural cause.

Theories do grow into laws when those theories are repeatly tested and provide the same results. The laws of thermodynamics were at one time theories but via repeat experimentation they became laws.

Whether or not creationism has been proven to be false depends on what you mean by creationism. First define what you mean by creationism and then we can discussion whether it has been disproven.

The interpretation of Genesis one and two are consistent with the rules of interpretation (defining words by usage and context) and the vast majority of bible scholars and theologians agree with the six day creation in Genesis one and that in the day is equivalent to when in Genesis two. This is agreed upon by the major bible translators including the translators of the New King James Version, New International Version and Darby's. In addition Strong's addresses the meaning of the word in the context it is used in and recognize the word as meaning "when" in the context of Gen. 2:4 (Strong's Main Concordance page 1123). And I trust the biblical scholarship of Strong's and the translators of the mainstream translations of the Bible. I'm not bending the words, I defining the words as these translators do by understanding the usage of the word throughout the bible and in the immediate context. You're bending the words to conform to your understanding of what science claims happened.

Neither your testamonies or your interpretatiion of Islamic or Mormon teaching is correct. Salvation is through the redemption via the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, period. That is NOT what Islam or Mormonism teaches. Salvation, sanctification and transformation are the result of a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It's the only way. The dramatic conversion I experienced and that has been experienced by millions ONLY comes through an encounter with the resurrected Christ. What you sight as "transformations" are reconsiderations of outlook not the transformation of lives possible throught the power of the resurrection life of Jesus Christ.

There were still people alive at the time the first gospels were written that could refute the claims of virgin birth, miracles and resurrection. The life changing power was active then and is still active now to attest to the truth of the gospel message.

Jesus mentions both the creation of man and the story of Noah in the gospels and as we discussed earlier validated the book of Genesis through His authoratitive use of accounts in Genesis.

My head is not in the sand and my eyes are wide open. Very little has changed in our understanding of the language of the Bible since the 1960's. The really issue is the move to twist the clear meaning to conform to what science claims is the answer for the origins of man while ignoring the standard rules of translation and interpretation. That accurate translation says that man was created by God complete and is not a process of macroevolution. That translation also includes a six days of creation. Whether this is a reforming after an original creation was mared (the gap interpretation) is still according to my study an open question but the timeframe from Genesis 1:3 to 1:31 is six, literal, 24 hour days.

Genesis two doesn't give a different creation story but focuses on the special creation of man. No conflict or contradiction except for those that need a contradiction to plug in their view of creation and evolution.

You "alternative" interpretation of the claims Jesus made about Himself are also not based in the standard, orthodoxy process of biblical interpretation. Your interpretation of those claims is also not valid according to most mainstream Christian theologians. I'm not make Christianity exclusive. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and the only Way of salvation according to the writings of the Apostles, early church fathers and mainstream Christian down through the ages. If you have a problem with the exclusivity of Christianity your problem isn't with me it's with God.

I would also argue that if you genuinely acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior you will minister to those in need. But minister to those in need isn't the starting place. The Bible says by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. It is only through the redemption found in Christ that we can be saved. Good works should follow but here is no room for arrogance or condesending attitudes.

I'm not using extra biblical insight regarding the Old Testament verse describing the earth as a circle. In plan language the earth appears as a circle, flat and one dimensional from the perspective of someone standing on the earth. But your attempt to ridicule won't divert my attention to your gross attempt at a revisionist reinterpretation of the Genesis account of creation to fit your extra biblical "evidence" for macroevolution and billions of years of evolutionary process as the origins of life.

Jesus was speaking to His followers with respect to the "many rooms." These are places, abodes in heaven reserved for His followers. The promise of living in His kingdom are repeated many times in the Bible and those promises are directed towards those that have accept Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

If you personally believe that there are "many" paths to salvation you are in stark opposition to orthodoxy Christian doctrine, a doctrine based on a simple interpretation of the clear words of scripture and accepted by the vast majority of mainline Christian denominations. The many ways doctrine is gross error and teaching that doctrine leads others astray. There is no other way.

 

[pmh1nic]

Here is a link to an explanation of beyom for the Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies. Beyom means "when" or "in the day" as a non-specific period of time.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_day1.htm

And here is a further explanation of the usage of beyom and why many Bible translators use the word "when" in Gen. 2:4 (taken from an article by Dr Gerhard Hasel, who was Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology
at Andrews University):

"Let us note these criteria as they are employed in Genesis 2:4. The noun yom is joined to the preposition be to read beyom. Secondly, it is used in a construct relation with the infinitive form of &#145asah, "to make." It reads literally, "in the day of making." This combination of the singular with a preposition in construct with an infinitive98 makes this combination a "temporal conjunction," which serves as a "general introduction of time."
Genesis 2:4b reads literally, "in [the] day of the Lord God making the earth and heaven. Proper English calls for the literal "in [the] day of," which is syntactically a temporal conjunction that serves as a general introduction of time, to be rendered with "when." This sentence then reads, "When the Lord God made...." This clear-cut case of an extended, non-literal use of yom in the creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 shows that the contrary usage of yom in Genesis 1, without any expected qualifier that marks it as a non-literal use, has a literal meaning. The term yom in Genesis 1 has no prepositions; it is not used in a construct relation and it has no syntactical indicator expected of an extended, non-literal meaning. Thus, in Genesis 1 yom can mean only a literal "day" of 24 hours.

In short, the semantic-syntactical usages of yom, "day," in Genesis 1 as compared with semantic-syntactical usages and linguistic connections of this term in other Old Testament passages where it has an extended meaning, does not allow it to mean a long period of time, an age, or the like. The Hebrew language, its grammar, syntax, linguistic structures as well as its semantic usage allows for only the literal meaning of "day" for the creation "days" of Genesis 1."

The above is the reason the Genesis 1 "day" are considered literal 24 hours days where as the "in the day" of Genesis 2:4 is the six day period and considered such by the major bible translators. No contradiction.

What you've found are a few translators, because they feel the need to make the Genesis account of creation fit the theory of evolution, who are willing to violate the standard rules for translating and interpreting the scriptures and claim a contradiction where none exist.

 

[Alchemist]

Since we're having difficult with the situation as it is let's not confuse and obscure with hypotheticals.

Sorry, science doesn't ultimately know where zebras come from it can only speculate on their ultimate origin and that speculation by definition is limited to natural versus supernatural cause. What you call "science" in the 1800's is not what's considered science today. Science deals with what can be directly observed, measure and repeatly tested, it doesn't deal with the supernatural so by definition science ignors supernatural cause.

Theories do grow into laws when those theories are repeatly tested and provide the same results. The laws of thermodynamics were at one time theories but via repeat experimentation they became laws.

Whether or not creationism has been proven to be false depends on what you mean by creationism. First define what you mean by creationism and then we can discussion whether it has been disproven.

The interpretation of Genesis one and two are consistent with the rules of interpretation (defining words by usage and context) and the vast majority of bible scholars and theologians agree with the six day creation in Genesis one and that in the day is equivalent to when in Genesis two. This is agreed upon by the major bible translators including the translators of the New King James Version, New International Version and Darby's. In addition Strong's addresses the meaning of the word in the context it is used in and recognize the word as meaning "when" in the context of Gen. 2:4 (Strong's Main Concordance page 1123). And I trust the biblical scholarship of Strong's and the translators of the mainstream translations of the Bible. I'm not bending the words, I defining the words as these translators do by understanding the usage of the word throughout the bible and in the immediate context. You're bending the words to conform to your understanding of what science claims happened.

Neither your testamonies or your interpretatiion of Islamic or Mormon teaching is correct. Salvation is through the redemption via the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, period. That is NOT what Islam or Mormonism teaches. Salvation, sanctification and transformation are the result of a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It's the only way. The dramatic conversion I experienced and that has been experienced by millions ONLY comes through an encounter with the resurrected Christ. What you sight as "transformations" are reconsiderations of outlook not the transformation of lives possible throught the power of the resurrection life of Jesus Christ.

There were still people alive at the time the first gospels were written that could refute the claims of virgin birth, miracles and resurrection. The life changing power was active then and is still active now to attest to the truth of the gospel message.

Jesus mentions both the creation of man and the story of Noah in the gospels and as we discussed earlier validated the book of Genesis through His authoratitive use of accounts in Genesis.

My head is not in the sand and my eyes are wide open. Very little has changed in our understanding of the language of the Bible since the 1960's. The really issue is the move to twist the clear meaning to conform to what science claims is the answer for the origins of man while ignoring the standard rules of translation and interpretation. That accurate translation says that man was created by God complete and is not a process of macroevolution. That translation also includes a six days of creation. Whether this is a reforming after an original creation was mared (the gap interpretation) is still according to my study an open question but the timeframe from Genesis 1:3 to 1:31 is six, literal, 24 hour days.

Genesis two doesn't give a different creation story but focuses on the special creation of man. No conflict or contradiction except for those that need a contradiction to plug in their view of creation and evolution.

You "alternative" interpretation of the claims Jesus made about Himself are also not based in the standard, orthodoxy process of biblical interpretation. Your interpretation of those claims is also not valid according to most mainstream Christian theologians. I'm not make Christianity exclusive. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and the only Way of salvation according to the writings of the Apostles, early church fathers and mainstream Christian down through the ages. If you have a problem with the exclusivity of Christianity your problem isn't with me it's with God.

I would also argue that if you genuinely acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior you will minister to those in need. But minister to those in need isn't the starting place. The Bible says by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. It is only through the redemption found in Christ that we can be saved. Good works should follow but here is no room for arrogance or condesending attitudes.

I'm not using extra biblical insight regarding the Old Testament verse describing the earth as a circle. In plan language the earth appears as a circle, flat and one dimensional from the perspective of someone standing on the earth. But your attempt to ridicule won't divert my attention to your gross attempt at a revisionist reinterpretation of the Genesis account of creation to fit your extra biblical "evidence" for macroevolution and billions of years of evolutionary process as the origins of life.

Jesus was speaking to His followers with respect to the "many rooms." These are places, abodes in heaven reserved for His followers. The promise of living in His kingdom are repeated many times in the Bible and those promises are directed towards those that have accept Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

If you personally believe that there are "many" paths to salvation you are in stark opposition to orthodoxy Christian doctrine, a doctrine based on a simple interpretation of the clear words of scripture and accepted by the vast majority of mainline Christian denominations. The many ways doctrine is gross error and teaching that doctrine leads others astray. There is no other way.

Hi pmh1nic,

As a rather conservative liberal Christian (don't ask!), I would agree with much of what you have to say here. Certainly, Christ's resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian doctrine, and though there are liberal theologians who find it less important, it is obviously from the Epistles of Paul he didn't think so ("Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" :o). But unfortunately, when it comes to the creations debate, I can't agree with you. Old earth creationism is not a "revisionist" interpretation of the Bible; it is young earth creationism that meets this criteria.

Why? Well, the "literal" framework of interpreting Genesis is not a traditional way of interpreting Scripture. The whole "literalism" movement in Biblical interpretation was really a product of 19th century American Protestantism, indeed in response to supposed abuses of the "traditional" churches, not a traditional method of interpretation. And even back then, hardly anyone had problems with the science of the day - when Christian geologists, attempting to prove a young earth, found evidence to the contrary, it was Gap Theory and Day-Age creationism, not Young Earth Creationism theologians turned to, for the obvious reason that YEC is exactly what the geologists had disproven. And so it was in nearly all Protestant churches until the publication of Henry Morris' book in 1961, the first time YECism had been a part of mainstream Christianity since Darwin.

And yet where did flood geology come from? Who first popularised the idea that old earth creationism was anti-Biblical? Was it a "mainstream" Christian? Nope, it was Ellen G. White, founder of the Seventh-Day Adventist church. Henry Morris wasn't really popularising his own ideas, but (perhaps unknowingly) the views of a Christian sect considered (at best!) unorthodox by mainstream Christians. The fact is, until the 1960's, flood geology, dinosaurs on the ark and vapor canopies were not accepted by any mainstream denomination of Christianity. The fact is, evidence of an old earth was seen to be perfectly compatible with the Bible by nearly every Christian denomination, from Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic. And, in light of this, the fact is anyone who insists on a young earth is not only ignoring science, they are ignoring 2000 years of theological discourse!

So who do you trust? God, who made the world the way it is, and specifically told us in his revelations to us that we are to love his with soul, strength, heart and mind - and the body of believers who for 2000 years, guided by the Holy Spirit, have defended His Truth? Or do you trust a man-made belief system, which in denying both science and theology - and branding old earth creationism "Satanic" - not only bears false witness to millions of God-seeking Christians, but directly contradicts the teachings of Christ himself? As Christians, we are called to "test everything", not turn our brains off and blindly accept doctrine. And if science, theology, and common sense are the means we have to test our beliefs, then young earth creationism fails miserably on all three accounts...

Peace,
Nick

 

[mark kennedy]

OK.

Let's have a little poll.

We know that we have theistic evolutionists and creationists here.

I want each to imagine that they uncover some piece of scientific evidence that shows that the other side is correct, and you are wrong.

Would you shift your position?

Absolutly, but it would not be a peice of evidence that did it, it would have to be a directly observed or demonstated mechanism.