|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/27/2008 1:21:05 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Yes, I think you've accurately given the purpose of God revealing the history of the universe. I was going to do it myself, but I think I like your explanation as good or better than my own.
Thanks for the compliment.
quote:
I would say that because God gave an order to his creative process, that was the order that it came in. Because he said "Let there be fruit bearing trees and such", waited til the next day and then said, "Let there be a couple lights," then that has to be the order that it came in.
That is still making two assumptions that I find questionable:
--that the creation account is a historical record
--that the sequence of days is intentionally chronological
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/27/2008 2:02:49 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
That's debatable, but what is also nearly an indisputable fact is that men wrote this history you speak of. Everything you believe is therefore based on recorded history that was written down by MAN. These are the men in whom your faith is placed. It may also lead to faith in God, but to get there, you must admit you had to grant an inordinate amount of default faith in the men who've gone before you.
It is also worth noting that you applied this faith selectively, because you have granted no such faith in ANY other religious historical record.
Ya, and I was not alive during the Civil War. But, I guess, by your logic, I have "faith" in those who recorded it. I guess I'm guilty as charged for accepting what the majority of men say.
I think this is meant to be sarcastic but it's correct and a step in the right direction if you can find a way to mean it sincerely. It doesn't take much Civil War study to realize that much of its "history" is self aggrandizing journal entries from men like General George McClellan who's accounts of his own battles rarely align with those of the men in his charge. He is always the white Knight saving the day for the union. He was a politician, who would later run for president. He was a glory seeker who wanted to make darn sure he didn't die in battle. Much of what went on is lost in the ether and if the south had not only lost, but been decimated, our ability to accurately reconstruct the events would be basically limited to determining who won.
And this is a very recent war, where many of those involved could read and write. There was news media, papers and magazines, to record the war real time. Subtract 15 or 16 hundred years and imagine how accurately such events might have been recorded.
quote:
No, it is just a piece of the puzzle. Just more encouraging evidence, thats all.
Which is perfectly fine, so long as we study and evaluate all of the encouraging evidence for all of the Gods that have ever existed.
quote:
Again, same as above. You do the same thing when you believe WWI actually occurred.
With this line I fear you have made my point stronger unintentionally. Historical accounts of past events, especially those written by the victorious, are useful in gaining knowledge and perspective about earthly events, and it is imperfect knowledge we can gain at that. You believe your faith is placed in God in heaven, though no "heaven history" exists. And you believe you have gleaned perfect knowledge of supernatural events through recorded earthly history. Unfortunately, this is simply not possible. To get to faith in God, you have had to grant unrestricted faith in men on earth who believed in God in heaven.
Wars aren't used to decide which side is right or wrong. They are used when opposing wills remain belligerent to one another and insistent upon having their way. They are able to determine nothing in the way of correctness. They determine only who is left standing in the end, and who gets to make the rules because of it. Unfortunately for us, wars also determine who gets to write the history, especially when they result in total destruction of the men women and children of the other side, as is so often ordered and executed in the bible.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/27/2008 2:28:21 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/27/2008 2:45:13 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think this is meant to be sarcastic but it's correct and a step in the right direction if you can find a way to mean it sincerely. It doesn't take much Civil War study to realize that much of its "history" is self aggrandizing journal entries from men like General George McClellan who's accounts of his own battles rarely align with those of the men in his charge. He is always the white Knight saving the day for the union. He was a politician, who would later run for president. He was a glory seeker who wanted to make darn sure he didn't die in battle. Much of what went on is lost in the ether and if the south had not only lost, but been decimated, our ability to accurately reconstruct the events would be basically limited to determining who won.
And this is a very recent war, where many of those involved could read and write. There was news media, papers and magazines, to record the war real time. Subtract 15 or 16 hundred years and imagine how accurately such events might have been recorded.
No, no sarcasm meant here. Just a simple point I am trying to make. That is, when something is fact, no faith is required, which is why I put "faith" in quotes. I don't really have faith in those who recorded the Civil War because it would be preposterous to deny it. I personally don't know any one who denies the Civil War's occurrence. However, I do know some who deny the Holocaust. 
quote:
Which is perfectly fine, so long as we study and evaluate all of the encouraging evidence for all of the Gods that have ever existed.
Trust me when I say, I have! No religion can claim NEARLY as much evidence as Christianity. This is just a simple fact.
quote:
With this line I fear you have made my point stronger unintentionally. Historical accounts of past events, especially those written by the victorious, are useful in gaining knowledge and perspective about earthly events, and it is imperfect knowledge we can gain at that. You believe your faith is placed in God in heaven, though no "heaven history" exists. And you believe you have gleaned perfect knowledge of supernatural events through recorded earthly history. Unfortunately, this is simply not possible. To get to faith in God, you have had to grant unrestricted faith in men on earth who believed in God in heaven.
And again, same as above. Something that is fact does not take faith to believe it. It is a fact that Jesus Christ walked this earth. He was was real man who did real miracles who people really worshiped. This has been recorded even by secular historians of that time who MADE FUN of these Christians worshiping some man. I place no more faith in the existence of my brother (who is sitting right next to me) than I do in the existence of Jesus Christ. What I DO place my faith in, however, is what Jesus says He is. But, that is for a totally different thread.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/28/2008 12:27:45 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
No, no sarcasm meant here. Just a simple point I am trying to make. That is, when something is fact, no faith is required, which is why I put "faith" in quotes. I don't really have faith in those who recorded the Civil War because it would be preposterous to deny it. I personally don't know any one who denies the Civil War's occurrence. However, I do know some who deny the Holocaust.
I see what I'm failing to write clearly enough. The point isn't about whether it's reasonable to believe that the civil war happened. It is about whether we can believe the details about how the war was fought and won. You're not basing your faith on any one broad brush event in which it is reasonable to believe are you? I understood you to be basing your faith in vast amounts of irrefutable evidence for the truth of the entire bible. This can only be accounted for by multiple sources. In my assessment the consistency you speak of is not there. One of my peers holds a Master's degree in history from Brown University and he is unbearably sure of the accuracy of his historical analysis. I have to constantly remind him to keep an open mind to the possibility that he isn't getting the whole story.
History records details of the life of a man like Jesus Christ. but the accounts are far from perfect, and far from anything we could use to determine that it is intolerable presumption to doubt His "powers" or His story. There is good reason to doubt the truth of that history, just as there is good reason to doubt the history of any acclaimed man, woman or deity. The "good reason" is that other humans did the recording, and we humans are known to embellish a bit from time to time, especially when we think it's for the best. In fact the more important we believe the subject of our biographical work to be, the more likely we are to paint him as, well, a saint. Again, this is why it blows my mind that the apostle Paul would fail to mention an empty tomb. That just seems like a detail you would NOT leave out.
quote:
Trust me when I say, I have! No religion can claim NEARLY as much evidence as Christianity. This is just a simple fact.
We should be careful to note that what the evidence is in favor of is that the men doing the writing actually believed what they were saying and seeing was true. We can't know if it was true, but we can see that it appears as though they believed it.
quote:
And again, same as above. Something that is fact does not take faith to believe it. It is a fact that Jesus Christ walked this earth. He was was real man who did real miracles who people really worshiped. This has been recorded even by secular historians of that time who MADE FUN of these Christians worshiping some man. I place no more faith in the existence of my brother (who is sitting right next to me) than I do in the existence of Jesus Christ. What I DO place my faith in, however, is what Jesus says He is. But, that is for a totally different thread.
I'll look eagerly forward to participating in that totally different thread then.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/28/2008 12:41:22 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/28/2008 1:41:58 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3969
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Actually it is NOT all written in the same literary style, this is misinformation often presented by those trying to argue for a literal interpretation, but it is completely wrong. Well, you've certainly dimissed one of the world's authorities on Biblical Hebrew as being misinformed! From the article "Should Genesis be taken literally?":
quote:
Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
Oddly, I agree to a great extent. There is no scientific evidence of which I am aware to support six "long periods of time" with a seventh so God could "rest".
However, the writer or Moses or several writers were not trying to answer scientific questions. Therefore, the effort to make Genesis literal misses the historical context. But the "long day" proponents are guilty of shoe-horning as well. To do so is like trying to make Carl Sandburg's "Chicago" a history of Illinois.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/28/2008 2:38:56 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3139
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, the writer or Moses or several writers were not trying to answer scientific questions. Therefore, the effort to make Genesis literal misses the historical context. Actually, cow, the Author of Genesis was "not trying to answer any questions" since He is the Answer! The Book is the historical narrative account of origins, no more and no less. Genesis is the historical context!
quote:
But the "long day" proponents are guilty of shoe-horning as well. To do so is like trying to make Carl Sandburg's "Chicago" a history of Illinois. Well PTL for that admission! So then what exactly is the historical purpose of Genesis, cow, in your humble opinion? Perhaps a nice fairy tale to soothe the superstitions of the ignorant masses?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/28/2008 5:33:44 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3969
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
However, the writer or Moses or several writers were not trying to answer scientific questions. Therefore, the effort to make Genesis literal misses the historical context. Actually, cow, the Author of Genesis was "not trying to answer any questions" since He is the Answer! The Book is the historical narrative account of origins, no more and no less. Genesis is the historical context!
quote:
But the "long day" proponents are guilty of shoe-horning as well. To do so is like trying to make Carl Sandburg's "Chicago" a history of Illinois. Well PTL for that admission! So then what exactly is the historical purpose of Genesis, cow, in your humble opinion? Perhaps a nice fairy tale to soothe the superstitions of the ignorant masses?
Doc, your semantic mish-mash is difficult to respond to, but I'll humor you. We agree that Genesis is not a scientific account of origins. Obviously a need developed for the Hebrews to have the Torah, otherwise, God would have given Adam the Ten Commandments. The masses were ignorant, evidenced by events such as described in Genesis 11 and 19.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/28/2008 7:03:54 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Yes, I think you've accurately given the purpose of God revealing the history of the universe. I was going to do it myself, but I think I like your explanation as good or better than my own.
Thanks for the compliment.
I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.
quote:
quote:
I would say that because God gave an order to his creative process, that was the order that it came in. Because he said "Let there be fruit bearing trees and such", waited til the next day and then said, "Let there be a couple lights," then that has to be the order that it came in.
That is still making two assumptions that I find questionable:
--that the creation account is a historical record
--that the sequence of days is intentionally chronological
Well, again, at least we've made progress. The day age argument was always really silly. I guess my answer to these objections is nothing that you've never heard. The creation account was given in a chronology of days separated by evening and morning. We may as well say that a calendar wasn't intended to be chronological. But again, we've been over all of this before. I'd much rather understand your point of view. I always preferred clarity over agreement. Why is it exactly that you find objectivity in Genesis being historical and chronological? (Or just link me to a page where you've been over it before if you prefer not to write it again).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/28/2008 7:35:58 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2905
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
The Book is the historical narrative account of origins
Even your own expert acknowledges that Genesis 1 is not a narrative but prose.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/28/2008 10:04:17 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
The Book is the historical narrative account of origins
Even your own expert acknowledges that Genesis 1 is not a narrative but prose.
Oh, I hate it when people lacking a background in literature garble literary terms.
Of course Genesis 1 is a narrative. And it makes no difference whether it is prose or poetry. It is narrative either way.
A narrative is simply a story with a beginning, a middle and an end. It can be as simple as a Mother Goose rhyme or it can be a short story, a novel, a ballad or an epic poem like the Iliad.
The pertinent question is not whether Genesis 1 is a narrative, but what kind of narrative it is. Is it a descriptive (scientific) history? Or is it a compendium of myth and legend that may now and again actually touch on history? Or something else altogether?
Northrope Frye, the great analyst of the bible as literature, gives an interesting analogy with the Norse sagas. He points out that these sagas tell us that the Norsemen were attacked by natives with catapults or ballistae. Scholars confirm that the Algonquins are known to have used ballistae, so here is a part of the saga that may be historically true. We also read in the sagas of "unipeds" people with only one foot. No one considers the unipeds historical. In another episode two members of the crew, a man and a woman disappear into the bush and return with a sheaf of grain and a bunch of grapes. Not as unbelievable as the unipeds, but suspiciously reminiscent of Numbers 13:23.
Because we don't accord the Norse sagas any status other than literature, we easily discriminate probable history from what is clearly not history or at least improbable. If we considered the sagas to be scripture, no doubt we would have people demanding that we accept all of it as history, even the unipods--in fact, especially the unipods.
But the composers of the sagas did not set out to write history. They set out to compose a good story. To some extent that story includes history, but insofar as it does, it is almost accidental.
There is more history in the bible than in the Norse sagas, and biblical writers were not merely interested in telling a good story. But telling accurate history was not high on their agenda either. The whole distinction we carefully make between "literal history" and "imaginative literature" is one that simply did not fit into their frame of reference. In many respects, the bible is neither.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/28/2008 10:42:23 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Well, again, at least we've made progress. The day age argument was always really silly. I guess my answer to these objections is nothing that you've never heard. The creation account was given in a chronology of days separated by evening and morning. We may as well say that a calendar wasn't intended to be chronological. But again, we've been over all of this before. I'd much rather understand your point of view. I always preferred clarity over agreement. Why is it exactly that you find objectivity in Genesis being historical and chronological? (Or just link me to a page where you've been over it before if you prefer not to write it again).
Yes, a calendar is intended to be chronological. But numbers are not necessarily sequential, especially if they have symbolic meanings. And in ancient time numbers very definitely had symbolic meanings which were often considered more important than their sequential order. Consider, for example, the analysis of Genesis 1 by the Jewish theologian Philo, an older contemporary of Jesus.
“It is quite foolish,” Philo wrote (in his masterwork On Allegory, “to think that the world was created in the space of six days or in a space of time at all.”
So why does Moses write of six days? Because six is a perfect symbolic number for creation.
Philo pointed out that the number six is unique among numbers in that it is equal both to the product of its factors (1x2x3) and to the sum of its factors (1+2+3). He also attached sexual significance to the choice of six, arguing that it is the product of an even (female, he believed) number and an odd (male) number. Seeing a symbolism likely to escape the notice of most, Philo wrote that because creation required “birth from couplings it was necessary that it should be shaped to correspond to the first mixed (odd-even) number which has the characteristics of the male who sows the seed and the female who receives it.”
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm
Now I am not saying Philo was right, but it is a good example of the fact that ancient people did not necessarily see chronology in Genesis.
A modern attempt to provide a non-chronological interpretation is the Framework Interpretation
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm
Still another way to account for the Genesis days is to see Genesis 1 as a polemic against pagan cosmogonies such as the Enuma Elish. The basic order of creation in Genesis 1 echoes that of the Enuma Elish in which they are attributed to various gods in order of their pre-eminence in the heavenly court. So vegetation, attributed to the chief God, Marduk, is named before the heavenly bodies who are his younger siblings.
So there is a great deal of precedent for understanding the Genesis days as something other than chronology. And the fact that they are described as having "evening and morning" is neither here nor there. The writer has no intention of describing the days themselves as anything other than ordinary days. But there are many themes in the narrative, not obvious to us moderns until we have studied something about ancient culture, that would have been obvious to his audience and that suggest the days were also not to be understood simply as history.
There is also the overall structure of the narrative, which is best outlined in the Framework Interpretation.
Then there is the fact that the second creation account gives a different order, and that additional accounts of creation elsewhere in scripture cannot be exactly synchronized with either of these. Genesis 1, for example, speaks first of light, then of creating the firmament. But in Proverbs 8, Wisdom describes the initial phase of creation in this way:
When he established the heavens, I was there,
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
when he assigned to the sea its limit so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth.....
Genesis 1 tells us nothing about drawing a circle on the face of the deep, nor about establishing the fountains of the deep or the foundations of the earth.
So I take it that the biblical writers were simply not all that concerned with the mechanics of creation, with what happened when or how long it took.
Now, of course, you can interpret all this within a code of biblical historicity. I just don't see the point. Why does it matter to you that Genesis 1 be history and the Genesis days actual days in a calendar? As we can see from commentators like Philo, Origen and Augustine, it is not as if a non-historical view is simply a knee-jerk reaction to modern science. But at least with a non-historical view we can accept both Genesis 1 and the history of the universe pieced together by science as equally true. Why insist on a non-essential interpretation by which God must be a liar, either in scripture or in creation? Why insist on an unnecessary and false dichotomy?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/29/2008 1:20:23 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2905
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
The Book is the historical narrative account of origins
Even your own expert acknowledges that Genesis 1 is not a narrative but prose.
Oh, I hate it when people lacking a background in literature garble literary terms.
Of course Genesis 1 is a narrative. And it makes no difference whether it is prose or poetry. It is narrative either way.
And I hate it when people don't bother to look at the context in which a statement was made. To be more precise the original poster was making the case that Gen. 1 was written as a historical narrative and that figurative speech was not used in this passage. I simply pointed out that the literary genre used in the passages was poetic (or prose as differentiated by the scholar he quoted), and it really does matter what literary genre the author used as that plays a significant part in how we interpret the passage. Yes, it is true that you can have narrative poetry, but the fact that it is poetry has greater significance in how we interpret the passage than whether or not it is narrative in nature.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/29/2008 7:27:16 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
And I hate it when people don't bother to look at the context in which a statement was made. To be more precise the original poster was making the case that Gen. 1 was written as a historical narrative and that figurative speech was not used in this passage. I simply pointed out that the literary genre used in the passages was poetic (or prose as differentiated by the scholar he quoted), and it really does matter what literary genre the author used as that plays a significant part in how we interpret the passage. Yes, it is true that you can have narrative poetry, but the fact that it is poetry has greater significance in how we interpret the passage than whether or not it is narrative in nature.
I was aware of the context. But it is still very careless to say
"Even your own expert acknowledges that Genesis 1 is not a narrative but prose."
Alter is certainly saying it is prose, not poetry. And he is saying it is not history.
He is not denying that it is a narrative.
As far as the importance of the literary genre and the purpose of the author, I fully agree with you. I am more inclined to see Genesis 1 as poetry (or at least poetic) than not, and I certainly agree it is not history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/30/2008 11:04:01 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
My point to all this is very simple. Why is it that creationists are the ones accused of reading meaning into scripture that isn’t there? How is it that we are accused of NOT reading from the text (exegesis)?
It's really pretty simple. Any honest and objective scientific observation of God's creation will show you that genesis is not to be understood as a historical text. Discrepancies between observed creation and scripture indicates a mistake on our part, in one area or the other. A misinterpretation of a scientific observation, or a misinterpretation of the Bible. A couple hundred years ago, you might have been able to honestly say that the discrepancies might be a misinterpretation of scientific evidence... but that doesn't fly anymore. Interpreting genesis literally is wrong, overwhelmingly and conclusively. If your understanding of the Bible can not be reconciled with anything other than a 6k year old universe/earth, the error is on your part. It's up to you to figure out what genesis actually means after that.
In other words, if you do not take reality into account when interpreting the text, your interpretation will be flawed.
Oh really? Then please tell us the real history of the Jews.  I love to hear present-day scientists make up history that no one in history can verify. It's very entertaining.
I could make up a history.. it would be as verifiable as Exodus... in other words, it wouldnt be verifiable at all. There's not a shred of archeological evidence that points to the Jews ever being enslaved in Egypt at all. Either way, thats not even really here nor there. Even if Exodus is part history, it wouldnt change the fact that the world is old.
quote:
Your last statement is quite true. Apes don't breed human beings in reality any more than energy can create mass in reality. So evolution and the "BIG BANG" (creative terminology) are out because they don't happen in reality.
Still failing to grasp that humans are apes? Youre not very sharp are you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/31/2008 12:00:33 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
My point to all this is very simple. Why is it that creationists are the ones accused of reading meaning into scripture that isn’t there? How is it that we are accused of NOT reading from the text (exegesis)?
It's really pretty simple. Any honest and objective scientific observation of God's creation will show you that genesis is not to be understood as a historical text. Discrepancies between observed creation and scripture indicates a mistake on our part, in one area or the other. A misinterpretation of a scientific observation, or a misinterpretation of the Bible. A couple hundred years ago, you might have been able to honestly say that the discrepancies might be a misinterpretation of scientific evidence... but that doesn't fly anymore. Interpreting genesis literally is wrong, overwhelmingly and conclusively. If your understanding of the Bible can not be reconciled with anything other than a 6k year old universe/earth, the error is on your part. It's up to you to figure out what genesis actually means after that.
In other words, if you do not take reality into account when interpreting the text, your interpretation will be flawed.
Oh really? Then please tell us the real history of the Jews. I love to hear present-day scientists make up history that no one in history can verify. It's very entertaining.
I could make up a history.. it would be as verifiable as Exodus... in other words, it wouldnt be verifiable at all. There's not a shred of archeological evidence that points to the Jews ever being enslaved in Egypt at all. Either way, thats not even really here nor there. Even if Exodus is part history, it wouldnt change the fact that the world is old.
quote:
Your last statement is quite true. Apes don't breed human beings in reality any more than energy can create mass in reality. So evolution and the "BIG BANG" (creative terminology) are out because they don't happen in reality.
Still failing to grasp that humans are apes? Youre not very sharp are you.
Any child can see the difference between humans and apes. But unfortunately, evolutionists aren't sharp enough to be able to yet.
Again, you verify that you speak from ignorance rather than knowledge. There is much evidence that the Jews were in slavery in Egypt. In fact, the Egyptians have sued the Jews for taking artifacts and gold from Egypt while they were in captivity. All you have to do is google the subject. Sorry.
But I'd still love to hear your fairy tale of the history of the Jews. I'm sure it's as entertaining as the made up creatures that you claim are our ancestors that no one in history can veryify.
< Message edited by Carico -- 7/31/2008 12:10:50 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/31/2008 12:11:57 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
... any more than energy can create mass in reality.
Energy can create mass, or rather, can be transformed into (rest) mass.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Bible for Theistic Evolutionists - 7/31/2008 1:45:25 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Any child can see the difference between humans and apes. But unfortunately, evolutionists aren't sharp enough to be able to yet.
Funny, my girlfriend and I remarked to one another at the zoo the other day that "any child could see the similarities", too. In fact, and this is absolute truth, one child near us did see the similarities. She even looked up and said to her mother, "he acts just like a person mom" about a beautiful Gorilla. But we didn't follow that up with a snide comment about the blindness of the devoutly faithful. Instead we eagerly read the placards on the exhibits about how all primates, including humans have 100% unique finger prints, and how ape and Human hemoglobin is 100% IDENTICAL, and how Chimpanzees and Humans share all but 1.6% identical DNA, and how Gibbons and humans have EXACTLY the same number of bones in their bodies.
We also read about how the adult human skeleton has 206 bones, but they don't all start out as single bones. Even long bones, like your femur, start out with the epiphyses separate from the main shaft, and then unify with time. There are 800 centers of ossification in the human skeleton that unite with age, and as such, the number of bony elements in a subadult can vary greatly. The Chimpanzee skeleton undergoes exactly the same process.
Then we moved on and learned about how cat, dolphin, and human embryos are virtually indistinguishable and all have tails. Can you tell the difference in the attachment I uploaded?
But even after learning about all this stuff, we weren't inclined to talk about the creationists not being "sharp enough" to see the truth. We just enjoyed the learning experience. I wonder what it is that causes your hostility against ideas that conflict with yours? Was it drj11's snide comment that justified your snide comment? Is that the grace your faith lends itself to? You're holding yourself out to be firmly established on the higher ground in this matter, but you're not giving me something to aspire to here.
quote:
Again, you verify that you speak from ignorance rather than knowledge.
Ah yes, but speaking from ignorance is the defensible stance on any debatable matter, especially ones where no real "knowledge" actually is available.
quote:
There is much evidence that the Jews were in slavery in Egypt. In fact, the Egyptians have sued the Jews for taking artifacts and gold from Egypt while they were in captivity. All you have to do is google the subject. Sorry.
But I'd still love to hear your fairy tale of the history of the Jews. I'm sure it's as entertaining as the made up creatures that you claim are our ancestors that no one in history can veryify.
I can't involve myself in the debate you guys have going on because I'm not historian but what about the history of the Jews suggests that they were a society of liars, thieves, rapists, murderers and adulterers before God delivered the 10 Commandments in person to all living Jews at Mt Sinai? If the commandments are so vital to the good order and discipline of our society, what did they use to keep the peace before God delivered them.
 Attachment (1)
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/31/2008 2:00:20 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
