The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Propocus

Please do not use JRRT's name in vain. Don't have a jihad about it!!
Long live half a brain and a bit of proper thought about it, wired in???

J C

Quote hairyheretic
How does something’s age have a bearing on whether or not it is true?

You are correct, age alone doesn’t validate something – but the fact that the Bible was written over 2,000 years ago AND not a single word has been dis-proven over that period DOES vindicate it’s veracity as The Word of God.


Quote hairyheretic
Every system of belief has its own creation story (at least all the ones I'm familiar with). Since they're not all the same story, that sounds like contradiction to me.

Most of the ‘creation stories’ of other systems of belief are approximations of the truth in the Bible – and a few are totally unrelated. The many “creation” and “flood” stories among different native peoples all over the world point to the veracity of Creation and Noah’s Flood. The ‘stories’ have gotten somewhat changed as they were passed down through “word of mouth” among various isolated groups of people after the “Dispersal of Babel”. The Bible contains the most accurate account, and is the infallible written Word of God – who was actually present at both the Creation and Noah’s Flood events.


Quote Wibbs
For a start, dinosaurs were unlike modern reptiles in many ways. As most would have heard, many were more akin to birds. Many were also warm blooded high metabolic rate animals which grew rapidly. The big dinosaurs you speak of had a very rapid early growth cycle which bulked them up massively(some would say as an adaptation against early predation). Looking at the growth rings in the fossilised bone one can see this rapid growth that slowed down when they got into their "teens". The really big brontosaurs and the like show this growth profile. They got to their massive size quite quickly(in as little as 20yrs) and remained around that size for the rest of their lives. T. rex it seems grew even faster, getting to it's large size under 10 yrs.

It is a fact that reptiles grow SLOWLY due to their SLOWER metabolic rates and they also continue growing THROUGHOUT their lives.
The biggest Dinosaurs (whom you have described as “warm blooded high metabolic rate animals which grew rapidly”) were actually LARGE MAMMALS. The really big Brontosaurus that apparently reached their MAXIMUM BODY SIZE in 20 years would have to be a mammal – as reptiles continue growing throughout their lives.
Other candidates for warm-blooded mammalian status include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose) (which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros). Other mammalian candidates include the Stegosaurus (which looked like a big Armadillo) and the Brachiosaurus (which had the general body physique of an Elephant - but with a very big tail and a long neck).

The cold blooded Dinosaurs, of course, were reptiles – and very large reptiles indeed indicating that they lived to great ages.

The reason why Evolutionists ORIGINALLY ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based solely on their correct OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold- blooded animals. They therefore logically concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent evolutionary geological time due to the extra time required for all of the physiology and temperature control systems of mammals to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the evolution of man – if large land MAMMALS existed 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!!


Quote Wibbs
Cutting edge science does not assume a starting point and go through hoops to try to make the evidence fit the theory, while ignoring the glaring anomalies that may disprove it. Science of any discipline should not do that. The very things you accuse the Darwinists of doing(sometimes with good reason BTW), you do far far more.

Like all True Science, Creation Science can and does test scientific theories against what it OBSERVES in the sensory-accessible universe.
Creation Scientists are people of both faith and science – and they know EXACTLY where the science stops and their faith begins.



Quote Wibbs
Original Quote J C
and this could explain the presence of fossilized tropical vegetation, which has been found in the polar regions.
Plate tectonics covers that quite nicely.

Plate tectonics only explains the observed phenomenon of the subduction of rock from one plate UNDER another plate, the frictional movement of plates at their margins as well as the creation of new rock at mid-ocean ridges and other volcanically active areas .
Such plate movements are very gradual and quite destructive of any artefacts, which are present in the areas of the Earth so affected. The idea that the Brazilian area of South America originally fitted in like a jigsaw into the west coast area of Africa with North America squeezed up against Europe is a total joke with no evidential or logical basis whatsoever.

There is no objective evidence that these processes have been ongoing for significant periods of time nor is there any evidence that the plates themselves have moved significantly from their current locations since they were formed during Noah’s Flood and it’s immediate aftermath, (6,000 +/- 1,500 years ago). The finding of fossilized tropical vegetation in Polar Regions therefore cannot be explained by Plate Tectonics.

JustHalf

J C wrote:

It is a fact that reptiles grow SLOWLY due to their SLOWER metabolic rates and they also continue growing THROUGHOUT their lives.
The biggest Dinosaurs (whom you have described as “warm blooded high metabolic rate animals which grew rapidly”) were actually LARGE MAMMALS. The really big Brontosaurus that apparently reached their MAXIMUM BODY SIZE in 20 years would have to be a mammal – as reptiles continue growing throughout their lives.
Other candidates for warm-blooded mammalian status include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose) (which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros). Other mammalian candidates include the Stegosaurus (which looked like a big Armadillo) and the Brachiosaurus (which had the general body physique of an Elephant - but with a very big tail and a long neck).

The cold blooded Dinosaurs, of course, were reptiles – and very large reptiles indeed indicating that they lived to great ages.

The reason why Evolutionists ORIGINALLY ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based solely on their correct OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold- blooded animals. They therefore logically concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent evolutionary geological time due to the extra time required for all of the physiology and temperature control systems of mammals to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the evolution of man – if large land MAMMALS existed 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!!

Dude, not all warm-blooded creatures are mammals... have you studied any basic zoology?

You can't honestly be suggesting that a triceratops was a rhino in disguise, can you?

JustHalf

wolfsbane wrote:

JustHalf said:
Yeah, all us Christians who believe in evolution all have a terribly weak faith, easily taken apart by any learned skeptic.

So I guess the only non-Christians I've ever spoken to are idiots. How long can I avoid the smart ones?!?

Well, the guys on this list are no idiots, but they do seem sort of easy-going atheists. They are content for you to live in your little Tolkien-like fantasy, but they do object to any scientific arguments made in defense of the gospel.

When you meet militant atheists, who want to wake you out of your delusion and to warn others against it, then you will have to face the facts of Scripture.

Yes, because I've never met any militant atheists before, have I? :rolleyes:

You presume an awful lot of knowledge about me and my fellow Christians who believe in evolution (and are in the majority, I might add). I can tell you right now that my experience with non-Christians extends well beyond this bulletin board, which might have something to do with being one for most of my life.

Saying that we have a weak and untenable theology, a faith that is shattered easily by any smart atheist... well, that's presumptuous as heck along with being just plain thick.

It requires that all "evolutionist" Christians to have never met a smart and motivated atheist.

J C

Quote Asiaprod
JC,
Here is something for you to ponder over the weekend.
Quote:
Dr. Lynn Margulis thinks humans are, essentially, a colony of closely associated bacteria. When she first proposed her theory in The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells in 1970, the ideas proved so controversial that they “could not even be discussed at respectable scientific meetings.” Today, however, the theory that most scientists rejected out of hand has earned, in the words of biologist Richard Dawkins, “triumphant near-universal acceptance.” The human story, as Margulis first saw it, began about 3.2 billion years ago when the only inhabitants on earth were bacteria. About that time, two primitive species of bacteria, a “mother” bacteria (Bdellavibrio) and a “father” bacteria (Thermoplasma acidophillium) started “exchanging energy” in a stable and dependable way that led to the formation of all subsequent life forms. This happened when the free-living bacteria took up residence in large “eukaryotic” cells. Confined within the large cells, the bacteria transformed into swarming elliptical membrane-filled bodies called mitochondria. With the formation of mitochondria began the flow of a river of DNA that sweeps through three billion years to include us all.

Having 'pondered' it for all of 5 seconds, the following questions come to mind:-

1. Does this mean that I run the risk of being charged with “mass-murder” or even patricide whenever I use an antibiotic or a disinfectant?

2. Why are the Christian Theistic Evolutionists rejecting the infallible Word of God to align themselves with evolutionists who think up stories like the one above?

3. Did you know that ALL of the other ‘muck / bacteria to Man’ evolutionary ideas are actually just as unlikely to have EVER occurred?


My words are TRUE says the Lord your God, and the TRUTH will set you free.


Quote
a “mother” bacteria (Bdellavibrio) and a “father” bacteria (Thermoplasma acidophillium) started “exchanging energy” in a stable and dependable way that led to the formation of all subsequent life forms

Is this how evolutionists explain “the facts of life” to their younger children ?

If they do, could I suggest that it is important to always say that the “father” bacterium loved the “mother” bacterium very much, before they started “exchanging energy”!!!!!


Quote Asiaprod
The Paramatman is beyond knowledge and ignorance, devoid of all material attributes (upadhi). In Vaishnavite texts, it is described as four-armed Lord Vishnu residing in the hearts of all beings and in every atom of matter.

In other words, Paramatman is the Hindu equivalent of God, and creation is all to do with vibration and the sound that vibration makes.

Are you a Vedas LITERALIST Asiaprod, or do you believe that it was just ‘poetry’ or ‘allegory’?


Quote Robin
Where does the Prophet (PBUHN) say that the words of The Silmarillion are false, intended only to snare the minds of the halt and the wills of the lame? The Prophet's Holy Word is only Truth and only His Holy Word is Truth!

With Sapien, I challenge you to demonstrate that a single one of the Holy Book's "profoundest reflections" (p10, HC, 1998) are false. Your heresy is nothing but the "lies and evil whisperings and false counsel" (p69, HC, 1998) so fond of Melkor and his willing servants

I too used be a Skeptic, but now I question EVERYTHING and especially Robin's view of the fairytales of J.R.R.Tolkien.


Quote JustHalf
Dude, not all warm-blooded creatures are mammals... have you studied any basic zoology?

I am NOT suggesting that ALL warm-blooded creatures are mammals – the other great Class of “warm bloods” are our “feathered friends” AKA Birds.

Birds are ALSO thought by evolutionists to be DESCENDED from reptiles because of their OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold- blooded animals. They therefore logically concluded that BIRDS could only have evolved in more recent evolutionary geological time due to the extra time required for all of the physiology and temperature control systems of birds to supposedly evolve.


Quote JustHalf
You can't honestly be suggesting that a triceratops was a rhino in disguise, can you?

If it looks like a rhino, walks like a Rhino, is a herbivore, has a high metabolic rate, is warm blooded, reaches a mature size in less than 20 years – then if it isn’t EXACTLY a Rhino, it HAS TO BE it’s extinct first cousin!!!

wolfsbane

hairyheretic said:

evidence from the ancient texts we have found supports that belief.
So what of evidence that contradicts that belief?

For example?

variious books being removed from protestant versions of the bible.

Yes, it depends on what one regards as the true text. The various strange doctrines in these texts ommited from protestant bibles confirmed the non-inspired nature of the texts themselves. But even a cursory reading of Tobit, for example, suggests it is not of the same nature as the OT books.

All short of that can only establish the Bible as a 'credible' record.
The same could probably be said of any sacred texts, and of those who believe in them.

I agree.

so who am I to say that their way isn't as valid as mine?

Hmmm, you mean Evangelicals who believe the Genesis record just might be right?

Yes, I supose that makes sense if one is still unsure of the truth. The difference for Christians (the authentic type, who believe in God and believe His word) is that we have found it. We therefore don't just think we may be on the right path, we KNOW so.

How can that be? No amount of external evidence could be so persuasive. One can only be convinced of the truth of the gospel when the Holy Spirit of God reveals it to one's mind. Christians call this the convicting/convincing work of the Spirit. It is His taking all the evidence one has seen of the reality of God, and the reality of His work in changing sinners into holy people, and causing the sinner to KNOW that it is real. He causes one to recognise that the Bible is God's message to man. To become a Christian, one then not only recognises God, but embraces Him by repenting of their sinful life and putting their faith in Christ as their saviour.

I'll do my best to live an honorable life, by the tenets of my own belief, and treat others as they deserve. When my time comes, I will face whatever lies beyond, taking full responsiblity for every choice I've made.

That's better than murder and pillage, hh, but it is not good enough. If it were, Christ died in vain, and God is a liar. Which is OK if there is no God, but if there is, then taking full responsibility will be a terrible fate indeed.

There are numerous beliefs. No one knows for certain which, any or all, are "right". If you cast doubt on one, then you cast doubt on all, your own included, because there will certainly be others out there who feel that your beliefs are anywhere from misguided to leading you to your doom.

Not so. It would only be so if it is certain that truth cannot be known with certainty. I have explained how it happens to Christians. You may doubt that we are correct in our understanding, but you have already admitted it is possible.

Short of some divine revalation turning up and tapping me on the shoulder, I will continue to follow the path I've found, and let all others do the same.

If your path involves a sincere and earnest search for the Truth, you WILL feel that tap - But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.Hebrews 11:6.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Sapien, I can't believe you are serious!

OK, for the last time - J.R.R.Tolkien wrote it as a work of fiction. Everyone since, maybe excluding some inmates of an asylum (and now you), have accepted it as such. We can document it as such. The Bible, however, was written by men claiming to be inspired by God. These men were recognised as such by their contempories and by the faithful ever since. They laid down their lives in support of their claims.

me wrote:

Tell me why Tolkien's Silmarillion is less feasible as a history of the world than the Bible, or concede that it is not so.

My point, which I now find myself irritatedly having to explain, is that *any* proposed history of the world, no matter how ridiculous, can be reconciled with the observed facts using the kind of shamelessly ad hoc rhetoric and twisted logic employed by creationists. I will show you how easy it is to do - if you, or anyone else, would play along for just a few moments.

If you truly refuse to accept the Truth of the Silmarillion, then use this as a thought experiment (what an idea!). Pretend that the Silmarillion and the Bible are equally ancient, competing accounts of creation. Prove one over the other, or concede that the Bible may as well be a fiction. Think of the Silmarillion as an experimental control. Do you see?

JustHalf

The skeletons of the rhino and the triceratops are completely different. The most obvious are the pelvic bones (massively different), and the skull. The ribcage too is another point of difference, highlighting the lack of a mammal-style diaphragm breathing in the triceratops. The horns of the triceratops were made of bone, while the horns of a rhino are made of keratin (like our fingernails) -- the two substances are completely different.

A brief look at external morphology - roughly how the creature appears from the outside - is not a rigorous way to compare different creatures.

Asiaprod

Sapien wrote:

My point, which I now find myself irritatedly having to explain, is that *any* proposed history of the world, no matter how ridiculous, can be reconciled with the observed facts using the kind of shamelessly ad hoc rhetoric and twisted logic employed by creationists. I will show you how easy it is to do - if you, or anyone else, would play along for just a few moments.

I am amazed that you had to explain that to our friends. By the way, my compliments on that approach. It was clever and was brining up some very interesting ideas.

JC wrote:

Are you a Vedas LITERALIST Asiaprod, or do you believe that it was just ‘poetry’ or ‘allegory’? .

I am a Buddhist, I do not care one way or the other about what the Vedas says. I answered a question using the text book answer from their own web site. The only vibration I am interested in is Good Vibrations by the Beach Boys and the only sound of any matter to me is that produced by any decent Texas Blues Band.
I think you should stay on track with solving the problems you are facing with Fossils, Dinosaurs, the mighty Coelacanth and now Bacteria.

Re your silly and highly insulting questions arising from your 5 second ponder:

JC wrote:

1. Does this mean that I run the risk of being charged with “mass-murder” or even patricide whenever I use an antibiotic or a disinfectant?.

I would recommend that insanity would be your best defense if it did happen.

JC wrote:

2. Why are the Christian Theistic Evolutionists rejecting the infallible Word of God to align themselves with evolutionists who think up stories like the one above?.

Don't have a clue, why don`t you ask`em, in a nice manner of course if you really wish to get answers, it will probably be that they are not rejecting the infallible Word of God, just the un-infallible Words of some very confused CSs

JC wrote:

3. Did you know that ALL of the other ‘muck / bacteria to Man’ evolutionary ideas are actually just as unlikely to have EVER occurred?.

No, it was not some thing I ever felt the need to ponder since I do believe in evolution and Darwin, but do tell.

JC wrote:

Like all True Science, Creation Science can and does test scientific theories against what it OBSERVES in the sensory-accessible universe.
Creation Scientists are people of both faith and science – and they know EXACTLY where the science stops and their faith begins.

There are two things wrong with this statement JC,
1. Creation Science is not yet a true science, it has not been accepted by its peers
2. They may indeed know where their faith begins, they most definitly do not know where science stops.

both JCs wrote:

My words are TRUE says the Lord your God, and the TRUTH will set you free.

That could be the best thing you have said to date, although its not my creed. I do not see the enforcement of Intelligent Design beliefs in school going any step towards setting anyone free. Quite the contrary, I find it a vile form of brainwashing aimed at immature and highly-susceptible minds. Not my idea of religious freedom at all.

hairyheretic

wolfsbane wrote:

For example?

I came across this in Waterstones at the weekend.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0722536771/qid=1131929382/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-7001907-6295015

"The Jesus Mysteries: The Original Jesus Was a Pagan God "

These authors seem to have a rather different oppinion on the truth of the bible.

I haven't read the book, and the reviews on amazon seem mixed, so I'll comment no further on what the book is like.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, it depends on what one regards as the true text. The various strange doctrines in these texts ommited from protestant bibles confirmed the non-inspired nature of the texts themselves. But even a cursory reading of Tobit, for example, suggests it is not of the same nature as the OT books.

My point is that we can see books *have* been removed on at the least one occasion. Can you be sure that the same has not been done prior to that? You only have your own faith that what you have there is true.

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmmm, you mean Evangelicals who believe the Genesis record just might be right?

No, I mean everyone who follows a belief other than christianity. Islam, judaism, paganism, buddhism, or any of the other multitude of -isms there are out there.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I supose that makes sense if one is still unsure of the truth. The difference for Christians (the authentic type, who believe in God and believe His word) is that we have found it. We therefore don't just think we may be on the right path, we KNOW so.

You have found your truth.

My truth is somewhat different.

wolfsbane wrote:

How can that be? No amount of external evidence could be so persuasive. One can only be convinced of the truth of the gospel when the Holy Spirit of God reveals it to one's mind. Christians call this the convicting/convincing work of the Spirit. It is His taking all the evidence one has seen of the reality of God, and the reality of His work in changing sinners into holy people, and causing the sinner to KNOW that it is real. He causes one to recognise that the Bible is God's message to man. To become a Christian, one then not only recognises God, but embraces Him by repenting of their sinful life and putting their faith in Christ as their saviour.

The bible and gospels may be true for you, but I'm afraid they have no spiritual meaning for me.

wolfsbane wrote:

That's better than murder and pillage, hh, but it is not good enough.

It is for my gods.

wolfsbane wrote:

If it were, Christ died in vain, and God is a liar.

Surely you realise that that has no real relavence for anyone who isn't a christian?

In case you haven't realised, I'm not christian.

wolfsbane wrote:

Which is OK if there is no God, but if there is, then taking full responsibility will be a terrible fate indeed.

Why do you believe that?

Every choice that I have made, every action I have taken, I have been responsible for. Why should I not then take responsibility for them?

wolfsbane wrote:

Not so. It would only be so if it is certain that truth cannot be known with certainty. I have explained how it happens to Christians. You may doubt that we are correct in our understanding, but you have already admitted it is possible.

I admit that all things are possible. As I said previously, I don't know the answers. No one does. They may believe they know, and they may know what is right for themselves, but no one here can really know what there is beyond. All we have to rely on is faith.

wolfsbane wrote:

If your path involves a sincere and earnest search for the Truth, you WILL feel that tap -

My path has led me from catholicism to asatru, and that is where I believe I should be. I have pledged myself to Tyr, and felt his hand upon my shoulder.

My truth and my path are not yours. They are no ones but my own.

On the off chance you want to know more about my beliefs, we should probably discuss them in the paganism forum, rather than take this thread off topic.

wolfsbane wrote:

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.Hebrews 11:6.

Everyone should find their own path, and their own truth, whatever that may be. Religion, spirituality, secularism, philosophy .. whatever is right for them.

Wibbs

J C wrote:

It is a fact that reptiles grow SLOWLY due to their SLOWER metabolic rates and they also continue growing THROUGHOUT their lives.

MODERN reptiles not dinosaurs. Actually there are quite a few modern reptiles that bulk up quite rapidly in youth and then slow down as they age. Leatherback turtles would be one example. The humble box turtle gets to an adult size within 3 yrs.

The biggest Dinosaurs (whom you have described as “warm blooded high metabolic rate animals which grew rapidly”) were actually LARGE MAMMALS.

Do you even know what a mammal is? You claim scientific training yet make an error like that?

The really big Brontosaurus that apparently reached their MAXIMUM BODY SIZE in 20 years would have to be a mammal – as reptiles continue growing throughout their lives.

Again you assume because "all" reptiles grow slowly all reptile like animals always grew slowly in the past. Unreal.

Other candidates for warm-blooded mammalian status include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose)

:eek: .

Other mammalian candidates include the Stegosaurus (which looked like a big Armadillo)

Eh no it didn't. At all.

and the Brachiosaurus (which had the general body physique of an Elephant - but with a very big tail and a long neck).

Completely different "body physique" as you put it. The differences in the leg bones alone would take a full page to describe.

The cold blooded Dinosaurs, of course, were reptiles – and very large reptiles indeed indicating that they lived to great ages.

Here we go, back to first principle here. What big dinosaurs are left after you've handily made most of them "mammals"?

This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the evolution of man – if large land MAMMALS existed 300 million years ago,

They didn't. Crashing down comes your theory.

then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this.

What????

Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!!

No it doesn't, because it's neither science nor fact.

Like all True Science, Creation Science can and does test scientific theories against what it OBSERVES in the sensory-accessible universe.

... and seemingly ignores evidence that contradicts the biblical view.

If it looks like a rhino,

It doesn't

walks like a Rhino,

It didn't.

is a herbivore,

Got me there.

has a high metabolic rate, is warm blooded

Possibly, possibly not.

reaches a mature size in less than 20 years

Yep

then if it isn’t EXACTLY a Rhino, it HAS TO BE it’s extinct first cousin!!!

Please God read a book. A science book. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I thought at the start you might have had good points to make, but quite honestly your claims to be a trained man of science are not borne out by your posts.

wolfsbane

JustHalf said:
Saying that we have a weak and untenable theology, a faith that is shattered easily by any smart atheist... well, that's presumptuous as heck along with being just plain thick.

So you will be able to prove how thick I am by explaining the texts I gave in a manner consistent with theistic evolution. I'm really looking forward to this.

And you can let me know how you responded to the atheist objection that the deity of Christ must be treated in the same fashion as the Genesis account. Thanks.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:
If you truly refuse to accept the Truth of the Silmarillion, then use this as a thought experiment (what an idea!). Pretend that the Silmarillion and the Bible are equally ancient, competing accounts of creation. Prove one over the other, or concede that the Bible may as well be a fiction. Think of the Silmarillion as an experimental control. Do you see?

Yes, I see alright. You have just moved the goal-posts. My refutation of the Silmarillion was based on its known origen - pointing out that your little parable is quite unlike the Bible. Now for this new one, yes, it would then be in the same catagory as the Bible and any other ancient texts. It would then have to be tested by its coherency and consistency with know facts. I don't know the story, but if it said ( in non-figurative manners) the earth was flat or its lower layers were made of gold, then that would prove it fiction.

As I said before, such tests cannot prove any text is true, but they can prove them to be false. The Bible has not been proved false, despite many attempts by 'liberal' scholars over the years. Then archeaology comes along and embarrasses them.

The knowlege that the Bible is certainly the infallible and inerrant word of God must however come supernaturally, by the inward revelation of God the Holy Spirit.

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

You have just moved the goal-posts..

No, the goal post never moved one inch, it was your obsession blinded you to the point that Sapien was trying to make.

llatsni

I cant believe I just read all that... can I have the last 45min of my life back please...

If Christians and non-christians are going to debate ANY of the issues raised here we need a common agreed lexicon from which to draw from. In the unlikely event of that happening I'll join the debate. That is not to say I will give no response when confronted by direct questions of this nature in every day life, but it truly serves no purpose to endlessly debate conclusion-less topics such as this when we cant even agree to HOW we should talk about it, much less get around to even talking about it.

Wait, I've just wasted more of my time. DOH!

Paul

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I see alright. You have just moved the goal-posts. My refutation of the Silmarillion was based on its known origen - pointing out that your little parable is quite unlike the Bible. Now for this new one, yes, it would then be in the same catagory as the Bible and any other ancient texts. It would then have to be tested by its coherency and consistency with know facts. I don't know the story, but if it said ( in non-figurative manners) the earth was flat or its lower layers were made of gold, then that would prove it fiction.

As I said before, such tests cannot prove any text is true, but they can prove them to be false. The Bible has not been proved false, despite many attempts by 'liberal' scholars over the years. Then archeaology comes along and embarrasses them.

The knowlege that the Bible is certainly the infallible and inerrant word of God must however come supernaturally, by the inward revelation of God the Holy Spirit.

I have shifted nothing - goal posts or otherwise. My argument was simply phrased, it would seem, a little too subtly for you.

The Bible propounds that the Earth is flat:



http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Asiaprod

llatsni wrote:

That is not to say I will give no response when confronted by direct questions of this nature in every day life, but it truly serves no purpose to endlessly debate conclusion-less topics such as this when we cant even agree to HOW we should talk about it, much less get around to even talking about it.

Wait, I've just wasted more of my time. DOH!

Paul

What planet did you just pop in from? You have indeed just wasted your own time. Do say hello next time you pass by our planet

llatsni

Asiaprod wrote:

What planet did you just pop in from? You have indeed just wasted your own time. Do say hello next time you pass by our planet

huh? is that supposed to be insulting or funny? me confused.

bus77

hairyheretic wrote:

Everyone should find their own path, and their own truth, whatever that may be. Religion, spirituality, secularism, philosophy .. whatever is right for them.

While I admire the sentiment. secularism and religion (in the context of this debate) are mutually exclusive, with no middle ground.

Excelsior

wolfsbane wrote:

So you will be able to prove how thick I am by explaining the texts I gave in a manner consistent with theistic evolution. I'm really looking forward to this.

As your Christian brothers and sisters, neither me, Puck, JustHalf, NeuroPraxis or any other theistic evolutionist on this board is interested in showing you to be thick. We don't intend to lobby for your opinion to change. We understand where you got to where you are from and we are happy for you to be there. You however, are not happy for us to be where we are. Creation Scientists fall into that great big trap set for them by creating disunity with other Christians over a secondary doctrine. I had always thought we were saved by Grace, not by Grace and "ultra modern creation science" or whatever it is JC is calling it now.

When seekers or even "atheists" (that rarest of breed) ask me why Genesis 1-3 is not to be taken literally and the Gospel records are I tell them. Genre. One is written as history and lived as history. It is utterly true.
The other is written in sparse structured poetic form and understood figuratively. It is utterly true. Just not literally.

Wolfsbane, I don't want you to agree with me. I just want you to respect my view which is sourced in a consistent and authentic hermeunetic.

I empathise with Iltsani (welcome back, by the way). This thread is spiteful and aggressive. No one is learning anything. Everyone is just proving themselves right in their own mind and you can do that in the shower without troubling the internet with it.

I will start editing any posts that move into "Creation Science" or refutations thereof. It is science after all, it belongs in the Biology thread. From now on, let us discuss the Christian text of Genesis 1-3 instead of these "dinosaurs are mammals" and "there is no difference between Tolkein and Genesis" shenanigans.

llatsni

Excelsior wrote:

... I empathise with Iltsani (welcome back, by the way)... From now on, let us discuss the Christian text of Genesis 1-3 instead of these "dinosaurs are mammals" and "there is no difference between Tolkein and Genesis" shenanigans.

Thanks, and thanks... after all this is the Christianity board isnt it?

My personal view on this board is that it should be a place where Christians can congregate to chat, share info and ask questions; and also a place where non-christians can come seeking a Christian perspective. This thread falls under neither of these (my) categories.

Asiaprod

llatsni wrote:

huh? is that supposed to be insulting or funny? me confused.

My apologies llatsni, I got caught up in this rubbish that is going on and forgot myself. It was unfair of me to round on you that way. I lookforward to debating other more worthwhile point in the future:o

llatsni

Asiaprod wrote:

My apologies llatsni, I got caught up in this rubbish that is going on and forgot myself. It was unfair of me to round on you that way. I lookforward to debating other more worthwhile point in the future:o

no bother... made me laugh!

wolfsbane

hairyheretic said:
These authors seem to have a rather different oppinion on the truth of the bible.

Yes, and there are swarms of them down the ages. Some seem led by genuine unbelief, from Marcion down to the the liberal critics of today. But some of the more sensational modern stuff seems to me to be written with the chequebook in mind - they know there are plenty of gullible folk out there just looking for something new. I haven't read it either, but I did find the mixed nature of the reviews interesting. Thanks for the heads-up on the book. I will check for a Christian rebuttal and let you know when I find one.


My point is that we can see books *have* been removed on at the least one occasion. Can you be sure that the same has not been done prior to that? You only have your own faith that what you have there is true.

Only if you accept the RC version of history. The Protestant/Jewish one suggests not. There is no question other books existed and some ( the Apocrypha) survive today. Some of the the non-surviving books were reliable enough to be referred to as histories by the Bible itself. The issue is what books were regarded as the inspired word of God, of which Jesus said it 'cannot be broken', John 10:35.

Hmmm, you mean Evangelicals who believe the Genesis record just might be right?
No, I mean everyone who follows a belief other than christianity. Islam, judaism, paganism, buddhism, or any of the other multitude of -isms there are out there.

I'm not sure you meant this to come out like that - that only Christianity cannot be true. If you mean that any of these religions could be true, from your point of view, then I agree.

You have found your truth.
My truth is somewhat different.

I don't buy that post-modern concept (moderator, see how I refrained from calling it something less polite, ). You and I may have differing beliefs about an issue, but we don't have differing 'truths' about it. Black is not white, theism is not atheism, creationism is not evolutionism.

The bible and gospels may be true for you, but I'm afraid they have no spiritual meaning for me.

I took that as a given.

it is not good enough.
It is for my gods.

They better be real and mine false.

then taking full responsibility will be a terrible fate indeed.
Why do you believe that?

Because Scripture assures me that all who die without trusting in Christ will be thrown into Gehenna, to be punished eternally.

Every choice that I have made, every action I have taken, I have been responsible for. Why should I not then take responsibility for them?

You should, and will, if you do not have Christ as your substitute.

I don't know the answers. No one does. They may believe they know, and they may know what is right for themselves, but no one here can really know what there is beyond. All we have to rely on is faith.

How do you know no one can know? You may not know, but how can you say someone else cannot have found the answers? If faith were only a 'maybe yes/maybe no' thing, then it would be worthless. Biblical faith is quite otherwise: it is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'Hebrews 11:1. It is the certain sure knowledge of the truth implanted in the heart by God.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:
I have shifted nothing - goal posts or otherwise. My argument was simply phrased, it would seem, a little too subtly for you.

Yea, I must be really dense. I thought you were talking about a book written in the 20th C. and capable of being proved a work of fiction. You wanted that compared to the Bible and that the same credibility would be evidenced. I must leave you to your exalted reason, it is far above me.

The Bible propounds that the Earth is flat:

Er, no, this silly article says it does. One example of the childish argument: Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. So the Hebrews thought of this as something like brass? They hadn't noticed the movement of the sun, moon and stars?

Such pathetic argument is accompanied by a denial of common figurative expressions to these Hebrews: Further, the Bible frequently presents celestial bodies as exotic living beings. For example, “In them [the heavens], a tent is fixed for the sun, who comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, rejoicing like a strong man to run his race. His rising is at one end of the heavens, his circuit touches their farthest ends; and nothing is hidden from his heat (Psalm 19:4-6).” Doesn't he know about similes (the clue is in the word 'like' in 'like a bridegroom')?

No, all Schadewald is interested in doing is rubbishing the Bible, not in fairly examining it.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:
From now on, let us discuss the Christian text of Genesis 1-3 instead of these "dinosaurs are mammals" and "there is no difference between Tolkein and Genesis" shenanigans.

No problem. Please now explain how the NT texts I gave can be interpreted in a way that allows Gen.1-3 to be metaphor, but won't allow the texts proclaiming the deity of Christ to be regarded likewise.

Remember, I'm not asking for Genesis 1-3 to be exegeted, I'm asking it for these NT verses which seem to refer to Genesis is a literal way.

Thanks.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

I will start editing any posts that move into "Creation Science" or refutations thereof. It is science after all, it belongs in the Biology thread. From now on, let us discuss the Christian text of Genesis 1-3 instead of these "dinosaurs are mammals" and "there is no difference between Tolkein and Genesis" shenanigans.

With all due respect, Excelsior, my use of Tolkien was not casual mischief. My comparison with the Silmarillion intends to, and I believe, succeeds in making a very important point about the logic of creationism. Is that not an appropriate thing to do in this forum?

Excelsior

Wolfsbane, the Gospel writers wrote historical accounts of literally true events. They claimed such things.

Genesis 1-3 does not claim to be literally true, is not written as something that intends to be literally true and as it turns out, is not literally true.

I have yet to meet someone who rejects the claims of Christ because of "evolution".

Sapien, I'm in a tough position here because this thread is certainly not in the spirit of the forum. Granted you made a reasonable argument. Forget my empty threads about editing this thread! I will leave this one open, leave it largely unvisited and hopefully it will die out to let useful and respectful discsussions take their place again.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:
Wolfsbane, the Gospel writers wrote historical accounts of literally true events. They claimed such things.

Quite so.

Genesis 1-3 does not claim to be literally true, is not written as something that intends to be literally true and as it turns out, is not literally true.

I and most evangelicals in history deny that. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume it is so.

What I'm asking you, and any other theistic evolutionist here, is to explain the New Testment writers' references to Genesis 1-3. They appear to be taking it literally.

A few questions as you exegete the texts I have given:

Was there a literal first man, Adam? Was there a literal Eve? Did Adam sin and bring death and suffering to the rest of us? Was there a literal Cain and Abel? Was Cain the first murderer? Was Abel's the first righteous blood shed on Earth? Was Adam made before Eve? Was Eve deceived by Satan? Was there a literal Seth?

I have yet to meet someone who rejects the claims of Christ because of "evolution".

The Irish must be very easy-going on Christians. Evolution is one of the key objections to the gospel I have met as I speak to my heathen friends. Has it not been the cause of many young people abandoning the religion they have grown up with, when they enter university?

Just a final point from your previous post:
We don't intend to lobby for your opinion to change. We understand where you got to where you are from and we are happy for you to be there.


Hmm, I would have thought a debating forum was intended exactly for that. So the idea is were just tell each other what we believe, so that we understand each other better, but not to challenge anyone's beliefs?

Excelsior

You might find people are more open to Christianity if they aren't called heathens.

I work with university students and I can state with full certainty that one doesn't lose their faith because of the theory of evolution. Evolution might be the excuse they use, but it is not the cause for them giving up their "personal relationship with Jesus Christ".

I disagree with you. I would like you to take the Bible more seriously. I would like you to take science more seriously. I would like you to criticise the enlightenment era instead of buying into it. But I see where you are coming from and I don't think your faith is going to suffer for it (even if it was, who am I to talk about that with you!).

As I understand it, the much mocked (by Creation Scienticians) Lucy is our 1st human. Genesis says that there was a time when there were no humans. Lucy or the developments we will see around her in the coming decades reflects that first force of humanity. The first human beings were the first sinners. After their sin, all of the Cosmos fell.

Cain and Abel and Seth and the stories around them until the end of the account of the flood and the marked difference in Genesis that occurs there are to be understood figuratively.

I am out of this thread. Enjoy decrying my heresies!