The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Evolution is a religion

robindch
<snore>

J C
...is that HOW Evolutionists practice their religion ????

Galvasean
Sure beats wasting time and energy praying :pac:

....so are you saying that Evolution is all a <dream> ...
...or does the <snoring> mean that Evolutionists all go asleep whenever they come together to adore Evolution????:eek::D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

....so are you saying that Evolution is all a <dream> ...
...or does the <snoring> mean that Evolutionists all go asleep whenever they come together to adore Evolution????:eek::D

No.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....so are you saying that Evolution is all a <dream> ...
...or does the <snoring> mean that Evolutionists all go asleep whenever they come together to adore Evolution????:eek::D

What I'm saying is sleep is more productive than praying.

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

...what you ACTUALLY said was that a true reading of Scripture DOESN'T contradict Spontaneous Evolution (i.e the idea that physical matter and energy is all there is and IT produced life) ....see your original words ABOVE!!!

Yes it does look like I say that doesn’t it? Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word ‘Spontaneous’. What I meant was this. Suppose that God did start life off on this planet as an amoeba or something and let it just multiply and multiply over millions of years and eventually it got to the complex stage like it is today and then destroyed it all between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 for what ever reason, and then He decides to create it a new after that as described in Genesis 1. If that were true then it would account for mass extinctions, the perception of evolved species and the geologic data. That’s what I meant.

J C wrote: »

....SIX DAYS kinda contradicts an Evolutionist Geological timeframe of billions of years!!!!

....SIX DAYS, each with a morning and an evening!!!!

...SIX DAYS that were to become the model for the ordinary WEEK!!!!

Well yes that is what I said. Six days contradicts the theory of evolution and the geologic data. But that is the debate isn’t it? If your interpretation of Genesis is correct then obviously there is conflict there. If mine is correct then there need not be a conflict because the Bible does not indicate as to how much time elapsed between the two verses.

J C wrote: »

....the Bible COULD be wrong ... and if you believe that, then that is a legitimate position ... but trying to do mental contortions to fit the Bible into a Pagan Greek Myth is quite unseemly!!!!

I’m not doing any mental contortions at all. Good read here:

J C wrote: »

...only if you believe that words are totally meaningless!!!!
......if 'mice to men' Evolution is true .... then we can't rely on a word that the Bible says ....to mean what it seems to mean!!!!
....kind of a useless book...if that is true!!!

I don’t contest that, but that is not my position anyway.

J C wrote: »

...as I have already said ...such a translation/interpretation makes no sense without the reason why the Earth became a waste-land being given.

Why is the lack of a reason why it became a waste in Genesis a reason to think that there was no gap there? What about the other verses of scripture that postulate a gap? Jeremiah 4:23-29 for instance? This cannot be a future vision, because there will never be a time when there is no man in scripture. All last day prophecies have men in them, right up to when God wipes away all tears after which there is eternal life for men.

J C wrote: »

....the translation/interpretation that the Earth was 'void and without form' is logically consistent with the reason provided in the first verse ... that it had just been Created.

There is no reason in verse 1 for the earth to be a waste and a desolation you said that yourself in the quote immediately prior to this one. If being just created is a reason for it to be a waste then Isaiah 45:18 is wrong, because that verse states specifically that God did not create it a waste.

J C wrote: »

...so unless you are going to argue that Scripture is nonesense or grossly deficient in information (which would be heretical) then the translation/interpretation that Earth was 'void and without form' (and indeed covered by water) immediately after its creation is the correct one!!!!

“In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth”. This verse states that the earth was created in the beginning. But it is not until verse 9 of Genesis 1 that the earth actually appears, and this is on the third day. The third day is not in the beginning is it? If God created the heavens and the earth in verse 1 and it was void and dark and covered with water when He did it, then He didn’t actually finish creating the earth in the beginning, which means that verse 1 should read: “In the beginning when God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was yet without form and void and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” etc. Etc, that would be a better translation and would leave no room for any gap. It just doesn’t make sense that it should read the way it does without a gap of undetermined time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

More good reading here and here before throwing out the gap theory as a tenable hypotheses.

J C wrote: »

....indeed arguing that the words of Scripture is consistent with the Evolution of man ... is ALSO a denial of the plain meaning of Scripture.

You are obsessed with evolution. If it’s so wrong then there is nothing to worry about. Having a gap in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 shouldn’t really bother you. It appears to me just from reading your posts that you are more concerned with stamping on anything seemingly supporting the theory of evolution than you are actually reading what ALL scripture says and how it interprets itself.

J C wrote: »

..so, do 'Gap Theorists' believe there are 'hidden/missing meanings' in everything ... is a 50Km/Hr roadsign a speed limit sign ....or is it REALLY a 'nude drawing'???!!!!
....or are such imaginings ONLY confined to the Bible?

You’re being incongruous.

J C wrote: »

....methinks there is NO gap !!!

....so let us look at Isiah 61:1-3 then
Isa 61:1 ¶ The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
...it is quite clear that ALL of Isiah 1-3 is referring to Jesus Christ's FIRST coming. The fact that He stopped reading and closed the Book in the middle of the second verse is of NO significance ... Jesus Christ DID proclaim the day of vengeance of God....and He did so in many verses throughout the New Testament including Mt 24:2; Mt 23:37; Lu 23:28; Lk 21:22-36 and most of Revelation!!!
Equally Jesus Christ brought the Good News of Salvation to the whole World on His First Coming and so ALSO fulfilled Isa 61:3 as well as 61:1 and 2

Read those scriptures again (see below) and you will notice that Jesus did not actually Proclaim the day of God’s vengeance as a scripture that was fulfilled in the ears of His audience. Jesus if anything, (possibly the last quote Luke21:22-36) merely refers to the day of vengeance in prophecy as a future event to be fulfilled. The actual proclaiming of them will be done until His return, only then can the next part of Isaiah 61:2 be actually fulfilled in reality as Isaiah 61:1 and part of verse 2 were in Jesus time, in the ears of the hearers. That is why He stopped in mid verse because to continue would have meant that the proclamation of God’s vengeance was also fulfilled which it surely isn’t, that has yet to come.

Matthew 24:2: “And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

This is not even part of the vengeance that is prophesied in Isaiah 61:2, this is to do with the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD, which is a judgment on Israel but not the God’s vengeance, that is reserved for the great tribulation.

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

Nothing about vengeance in there.

Luke 23:28 “But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.”

Again nothing of God’s vengeance there either.

Luke 21:22-36 “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

“These be the days of vengeance” He’s talking about future events which is why He could not say that this day this scripture is fulfilled in your ears. It has yet to happen. Hence the gap.

J C wrote: »

....you are correct that Evolutionist Geology says that the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible says that it is thousands of years old!!!!

Only a YEC’s interpretation of it.

J C wrote: »

....you are also right that these statements are mutually exclusive and contradictory...so which do YOU say is the truth....the Word of God ....or the fables of Men???

The Word of God which points to a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 of course, words which you don’t mind ignoring. I won’t say that what you do is heretical just because you see it differently to me even though you are quick to use that word because others view it differently to you.

J C wrote: »

....and 'mucking about' with the Words of the Bible trying to 'make' them say something that they CLEARLY don't say is a waste of time!!!!

I wouldn’t say clearly and it surely isn’t a waste of time to rightly divide the scripture and see what it is actually saying?

J C wrote: »

...I'm sorry, but you are stuck with a SIX DAY Creation and a YOUNG EARTH ...if the Bible is to be believed... and if it is not to be believed, then the local Skeptics Club for Young Earth Creationism will welcome you in with 'open arms'!!!!

There fixed.

J C wrote: »

As a conventionally qualified polymath Scientist, I see the proponderance of the SCIENTIFIC evidence favouring a Young Earth and a Rapid Direct Creation...and I accept the Word of God as true.

That does nothing to quell the debate that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It might be a gap of 5 seconds or 5 billion years but it is still a gap.

J C wrote: »

If I didn't see these things ... and I didn't believe the words in the Bible to mean what they say, I would probably do the decent thing and become an Atheist!!!!....I certainly wouldn't be hanging about demorailsing myself and everybody else, by trying to argue that the word 'black' in the Bible actually means 'white'....and the word 'Create' is a metaphor for the word 'Evolution'!!!

You’re being incongruous again.

J C wrote: »

....it would be rather pointless ... and 'economical with the truth' if God mentioned that the Earth became a waste without giving a reason why it did so ... why mention it at all, if God wasn't going to tell us why/how it became a waste.....doubly so when a plain reading of the text would otherwise indicate that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 were describing events on the SAME DAY!!!!

The Bible doesn’t explain a lot of things. Llike how the sun stopped for Joshua, or why the battle was won when Aaron and Hur raised Moses’ arms. Does that mean these things didn’t happen? Why did Jesus write on the ground with His finger? And what did He write? Does the Bible explain thes things? If not then do you believe they happened?

J C wrote: »

...God DIDN'T "Create the heavens and the earth a waste and a desolation" ....they were created for life..and populated within SIX DAYS of the Creation!!!!
The EARTH was without form and void (and covered in water)IMMEDIATELY after it was Created...nothing more and nothing less!!!

Fine, you believe that and I’ll believe that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2

J C wrote: »

....the Isrelites partially repented....and God MITIGATED their punishment to bondage in Babylon!!!
....and, as a result, we all survived to write on the Boards.ie!!!!

Balderdash. God spared the ones who repented, like Jeremiah himself, the rest He judged according to His word. If that judgment was to make the whole earth a waste and desolation again then we wouldn’t be here to write on Boards.ie. So if it is not a vison of the future when at what other time could the earth have been totally made a waste and desolation at a time when there was no man? The past, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

J C wrote: »

....where are you getting this stuff from????

Ge 1:14 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
15 "and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
....quite clearly the Bible states that the Sun, Moon and Stars were MADE on the Fourth Day....ie AFTER Day One when the Earth was without form and void...so there was NO Sun to be darkened by any putative ash.. or anything else on Day One!!!!
...and BTW God Created the 'Heavens' on Day One...ie what we call Outer Space...without the stars or the Sun ... which were Created on Day Four!!!

They were not created (Bara) on the fourth day, they were set, or appointed (Asah) on the fourth day.

J C wrote: »

...there is NO Gap, it reads like there was NO Gap and it logically 'hangs together' WITHOUT a Gap...so I guess you can safely say...there PROBABLY wasn't any Gap!!!

No it actually does read like there was a gap. The earth became a waste and a desolation after it was created in the beginning does in fact sound and read like there was in fact a gap.

J C wrote: »

...all this talk about imaginary gaps reminds me of the old marketing truism ...'even if there is a gap in the market - there may not be a market in the gap'!!!!

...in the case of Genesis there is NEITHER a Gap in the market NOR a market in the gap!!!

But there is a gap in the market, you’re just scared of the implications of it possibly agreeing with evolutionary theory (which I don’t really care if it does or doesn’t). Reading scripture through the spectacles of anything but evolution glasses will only blind you to some obvious truths contained therein and lessen your understanding of the whole of scripture as a consequence.

J C wrote: »

...there is no Gap there EITHER!!!
...Jesus FIRST Coming was to proclaim the Good News of Salvation AND to proclaim God's vengeance upon anybody who doesn't become Saved ... what do you think happens somebody who isn't Saved when they die????
....they receive God's Wrath!!!!
...or do you also believe that you can be Saved from God's Wrath without being Saved.....and you can fall into Salvation through a Gap there as well???

Jesus’ first coming was to die for the sins of mankind. To open a door that was otherwise shut. He came to destroy the works of Satan. The barrier put up by our sins which walled us away from God and could not be broken down until the penalty decreed upon it was paid. The ultimate vengeance is yet to come and could not have been quoted from Isaiah and be said that it was fulfilled in the hearer’s ears. Hence the gap of 2000 years plus. The ears that it will be fulfilled in are those who will be around when it is actually being proclaimed and executed.

J C wrote: »

...so, if you share my conviction that Evolution is a load of baloney...why do you do mental contortions to try and 'fit' Genesis into an 'Evolutionist Framework'...that is NEITHER Scientifically NOR Theolgically sound???

I agree but that is not what I am doing.

J C wrote: »

...that is NOT how the Vatican views them....the Vatican have disowned the ID Proponents...and they ACTIVELY OPPOSE the Creation Scientists within their midst!!!!

I don’t care what they do to be honest. Doesn’t bother me at all.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

What I'm saying is sleep is more productive than praying.

....it all depends on who you are sleeping with ... and who you are praying to!!!!:eek::pac::):D

AtomicHorror

I've been busy but thought I'd drop in. From waaay back:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now comes the issue of morality. Reasoning from science alone cannot tell us if throwing someone off the cliff is good or evil. We need other data. We need an assessment of the value of human life; of our responsibility to one another; of our responsibility to a Higher Authority (if there is one).

So we ask ourselves these questions about the nature and meaning of life:
Non-theistic evolution tells us we are just complicated forms of matter, that our self-awareness is just the result of chemical processes. That our conscience and emotions reflect only a chemical response conditioned by long evolutionary processes, and are not objectively of value.

So regardless of how we might feel about throwing our neighbour off the cliff, Reason tells us it is of no objective value. If it suits us, we may do it or not. There is on ought to in life.

Again though, in the "materialist" view values, while not absolutes, are real. They are subjective, but not a choice in themselves. And if we value human life, that is not a rational stance based on what life is, it is simply a fact. We can no more choose to not value life emotionally than we can switch off a disliking for a person nor deny feelings of love for a person. These are not things that are under our control. And indeed, were we able to negate them, we would have no particular reason to act at all. Are emotions are our ultimate impetus, and the source of our meaning in life.

Non-theistic evolution leaves us in the same place we always were. With the facts, our values and our choices.

AtomicHorror

Right so J C, I've checked back over the pages since I last posted and it seems that the small matter of my 15 questions (14769) and your 21 (14748) questions has still not been resolved. When last we looked, I had posted 15 questions, you had replied and I had refuted your replies. So I'm waiting to hear counter arguments there. You also posted your own 21 or so questions from way back when which I have replied to in full. Waiting for your rebuttals there.

I also dismantled your probability argument as nonsense and would be most interested to hear your defence:

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You don't understand probability J C- that much is painfully obvious. I notice that back in the day you used to assert that evolution was impossible based on the probability of the human genome coming into existence spontaneously. A meaningless assertion since nobody has ever claimed it did so. And now you use some "specific simple protein" as if that has anything to do with evolution or abiogenesis.

I'll try to explain it in simple terms:

1. The probability of any specified sequence coming into existence incrementally is always higher than the probability of it coming into existence in a single step. So if we assume that specified sequences are relevant to abiogenesis or evolution, your calculations are immediately incorrect. Your probabilities are automatically an over-estimation.

2. Abiogenesis and evolution are non-teleological. Function follows form. Therefore, considering the probability of existence of specified sequences is nonsensical. Instead you have to look at non-specified sequences of a given length or complexity. Again, you've failed to do this.

It's been about three weeks and you've not addressed any of this.

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Again though, in the "materialist" view values, while not absolutes, are real.

Values although real are not absolutes? Do you believe in absolutes? If so then what are they/is it? If not then why not? If you have a reason for thinking that there are no absolutes then your reasoning for that conclusion is absolute yes? Hence making your reasoning the absolute.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We can no more choose to not value life emotionally than we can switch off a disliking for a person nor deny feelings of love for a person.

You'd be surprised what human nature can do once something gets in its way. It is capable of the most heinous acts. We only value life so long as it is not bothering us. Not sure who said it in another post but it went something like this "The affect religion has on the world is bad enough to justify killing in order to stop it" (maybe someone can quote it better). Now that might be true but it still shows that valuing life only goes so far even in humanism.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

These are not things that are under our control. And indeed, were we able to negate them, we would have no particular reason to act at all. Are emotions are our ultimate impetus, and the source of our meaning in life.

So you admit that life has meaning? And the basis for that meaning is in our emotions. Does that mean that you believe that life has purpose too?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Non-theistic evolution leaves us in the same place we always were. With the facts, our values and our choices.

But how can we have choices in a Godless universe? We are not free agents. We are bound to propogate DNA like it or lump it. We are either incidental or accidental. We have no ultimate purpose or meaning in this universe if all that exists is non-theistic evolution.

Flamed Diving

*lays in wait for post 15,000...*

The Mad Hatter

Flamed Diving wrote: »

*lays in wait for post 15,000...*

Not if I get there first...

And you're lying, not laying (I hope!)

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

Values although real are not absolutes? Do you believe in absolutes? If so then what are they/is it? If not then why not? If you have a reason for thinking that there are no absolutes then your reasoning for that conclusion is absolute yes? Hence making your reasoning the absolute.

The universe appears to have objectively verifiable rules. Absolutes, for all intents and purposes. This is the only assumption I make, and that's because I have to start somewhere. When I say that values are not absolutes, I mean that they are subjective and that they vary between people. This is an observable and objectively verifiable fact in itself.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You'd be surprised what human nature can do once something gets in its way. It is capable of the most heinous acts. We only value life so long as it is not bothering us. Not sure who said it in another post but it went something like this "The affect religion has on the world is bad enough to justify killing in order to stop it" (maybe someone can quote it better). Now that might be true but it still shows that valuing life only goes so far even in humanism.

Ok, but how does that make what I said about choosing values incorrect? People who value life can certainly take life, depending on the balance of other values involved. It tends to traumatise them, mind you. Some people can kill without harming themselves, but these are people who don't value life.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you admit that life has meaning? And the basis for that meaning is in our emotions. Does that mean that you believe that life has purpose too?

Admit it? When did I deny it? Life does not have objective meaning. But it has subjective meaning.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But how can we have choices in a Godless universe? We are not free agents.

We appear to be. We can't really determine otherwise, at least not at the moment. Why assume that our free will is any more or less valid because of God?

Soul Winner wrote: »

We are bound to propogate DNA like it or lump it.

If that were true it would be meaninglessly reductionist. As it stands, it is not true. We have a set of behaviours which generally serve to make us survive and reproduce, but that hardly indicates determinism. And certainly not some teleology.

Soul Winner wrote: »

We are either incidental or accidental. We have no ultimate purpose or meaning in this universe if all that exists is non-theistic evolution.

Well it's hardly "all that exists", it's a theory that is limited to explaining the diversity of life. It's the body of scientific evidence overall that suggests that there is no objective meaning or purpose. If you want to contradict that notion then your target is far bigger than evolution. It's pretty much every field of scientific research.

toiletduck

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution is a religion to some evolutionists

That's why scientists are in on it, tax exempt status!

robindch

Nice one in from our primate relatives in Thailand:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7940052.stm

Macaque monkeys have been observed flossing their teeth with human hair. What's cool is that the adult monkeys flossed for twice as long when they knew their kids were watching.

The Mad Hatter

toiletduck wrote: »

That's why scientists are in on it, tax exempt status!

*worships...*

Wait... wolfsbane - what am I supposed to be worshipping here?

Edit: Ah crap, I think the next post gets page 1,000.

Am I gonna spam the thread just for it?

*considers*

Nah...

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

*worships...*

Wait... wolfsbane - what am I supposed to be worshipping here?

Darwin, apparently. Just keep the bit about us rejecting Darwin's ideas on inheritance under your hat. It doesn't gel well with the dogma image we're going for.

Oh and....

OOOOOOONE THOOOOOUSAAAAND!

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

what am I supposed to be worshipping here?

Often wondered about that. A google for "prayer to darwin" throws up just three hits in the entire internet, only one of which has anything looking like a prayer attached:

Some Guy wrote:

Our father that art dead.
Revealer of secrets.
Bearded one.
We beg of you to save the creationists.
Before they start another war over their magical pixie.
In Dawkins name Amen

Can anybody here do better?

With post number 15,000 coming up soon, I think we should push the boat out a bit on this one and try to plug this dangerous gap in "evolutionist" culture.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

OOOOOOONE THOOOOOUSAAAAND!

15,000? The counter's only at 14987 for me. I feel deprived.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

15,000? The counter's only at 14987 for me. I feel deprived.

No, 1,000 pages. 15,000 posts is the next milestone. Which I will win.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, 1,000 pages.

Ah, ok. I've got my post-per-page set to the max, so I'm only on page 375 at the moment. Long way to go...

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, 1,000 pages. 15,000 posts is the next milestone. Which I will win.

After I gave you page 1,000 on a silver platter?!

Also, I don't actually know what you mean by 'Darwin's ideas on inheritence'. Does that make me more or less of an 'evolution-as-a-religionist'?e

Soul Winner

This is just to have my handle on the 1000th page at least :pac: Childish I know :rolleyes:

J C

7

J C

6

J C

5

J C

4

J C

3

J C

2

Ciaran500

*yoink*
Evolution is a scientific fact!


EDIT: Bah, someone is cheating. This was the 15,000 post.

J C

15,000 !!!!:D:eek:

J C

15,001