Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
robindch wrote:Jesus says that hating your family is good - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. [Luke 14:26]
"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner." Now, if you're on me and you gotta move when I move, how do you expect to keep a... a marriage? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113277/quotesrobindch wrote:If one's only requirement for truth is the appearance of a supporting phrase from the bible, then you can prove just about whatever you want to.
I take your point though.0 -
Quote Sapien
A really good one:
Quote:
"Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood." (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
Do you know - you're right! Sometimes it is obvious when it's meant literally.
These are indeed terrible words, words that shock us all, myself included – yet they are God’s pronouncements against His OWN Chosen People delivered to them by their OWN Prophets.
They show an aspect to God that is often ignored – they show a fearsome God that warns us of retribution for sin and who has shown His willingness and ability to execute this retribution. God’s judgement upon Adam and Eve brought death upon themselves and to all of us as their descendants. Equally, Noah’s Flood shows a God who is prepared to extinguish nearly all life on this Planet, rather than countenance widespread sin and blasphemy.
Thankfully, these terrible words and their equally terrible actions belong to a period when the World was under Law and God’s condemnation.
The strength of Law lies in it’s ability to condemn – but this is also it’s weakness, because reconciliation cannot be achieved through condemnation.
The good news is that the World is now under God’s Grace in relation to sin. However, the bad news is that the period of God’s Grace will end for each one of us at the moment of death. We will then all fall under God’s righteous Judgement – and I do not want to stand before this almighty God and plead that my good works during my life are sufficient to wipe away my sins. I know that because I am not God, I cannot wipe away my sins by my own efforts – I must instead believe in Jesus Christ and ask Him to forgive my sins.
Quote JustHalf
Excelsior is specifically talking about the Christian students he works with.
Excelsor did say that the students HAD given “up their personal relationship with Jesus Christ” – so by definition these young people do NOT claim to be Christians.
My only question is whether they EVER had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ. It has been my experience that once somebody does become indwelt by the Holy Spirit they don’t subsequently abrogate their faith.
Quote Asiaprod
Come on JC, that really is clutching at straws. Art should be treated as nothing more than art.
You cannot use the Sistine Chapel to validate your argument
I have previously validated my argument by quoting the RCC Magesterium, which historically held Creation to be a SINGLE INSTANTANEOUS ACT and Luther, Calvin, et al who held that it was a SIX DAY PROCESS.
The Painting of the ‘Creation of Adam’ in the Sistine Chapel DOES prove that the RCC once held that the Direct Divine Creation of Man was both important and true.0 -
Sapien said:
We have established that there are no means to this end other than direct intervention by God.
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I now see your problem is indeed a lack of logic. You cannot follow a simple line of reasoning. So here you fail to see that one requirement (direct intervention) does not rule out the need of another (the preaching of the word). Concentrate.
There is no reason why you could not believe that Christ was fully divine, only son of the one living God, etcetera, without believing he was omniscient.
A strange definition of God. One who is ignorant of basic facts of His creation? Even theistic evolutionists believe He did originally create everything. No, Sapien, one cannot get your sort of God from the Bible. One has to reject one concept or the other.
It is confusing to me that you have spent so much time debating issues such as this without picking up even the most basic terminology of epistemology or theory of science. Genesis, you contend, constitutes a positive claim - therefore the burden of evidence is upon those who wish to substantiate it. We do not need to falsify it - there is precisely nothing to recommend it in the first place.
A further example of you getting lost in your reasoning. I was contending with theistic evolutionists about their need to accept Genesis as a literal account, based on the fact that Christ and the apostles did so. They cannot claim infallibility for them and reject their interpretation of Genesis at the same time. So they must do the proving if their case is to stand. You took this as my saying atheistic evolutionists ( 'We') are under the same obligation - they are not.
Creation myths...They are invariably bizarre, sometimes ridiculous, even whimsical. They are stories, colourful and entertaining. Eden is one of the prettier, if pedestrien versions. Do you really believe that these stories were all meant to be taken seriously?
I can't speak for all of them, but some may well. Some may have been constructed and taken as a good tale for the fireside. Your 'invariably' is a presupposition. Why could an authentic history not be handed down, especially if God were the One supervising its transmission? Of course, another presupposition - there can be no God.
Do you think the composers of the Genesis stories would defend them against scientific investigation and demand that they be taken as historical records? Were they composed at one instance or did they evolve? (Careful...)
Yes. They were not the thick peasants you imply. They were the people who invented music, mathematics, who built great edifices, who invented writing. Were the Semites a sub-normal class, or did they at least enjoy the capacities of the rest of mankind? So, Yes, they would have expected us to take their history as real, and many laid down their lives rather than deny it.
As to how the Bible came to be, no one that I know, including the writers of the Bible itself, claim it was composed ' at one instance'. It was composed bit by bit over many years. The first definite written record comes from Moses initially. He would have inscribed the oral record handed down from Adam, via Noah, Abraham, etc. To that were added the direct revelations given him by God. Then the same regarding the prophets. To that also came the history of the nation of Israel in the Land, down to Christ. The NT Scripture gives us the history of Christ and the early church. Also the teachings of the apostles. A long series of compositions. All claiming to be the word of God, infallible ('cannot be broken', as Christ said).
You can be an unbeliever and deny the bible to be the word of God. But you cannot be a believer and do so.
Many Christians are happy to admit that the Bible is a hodge-podge of wonderful legends, like a book of short stories misinterpreted as a novel - to find deep spiritual nourishment in the Gospels, while satisfying themselves that most of the OT is crazy nonsense.
They are either fools or not Christians at all. On what basis can they believe their God has really made atonement for their sins? If they have your view of Scripture, all their beliefs are up for debate, indeed totally subjective. I think you must be talking about the Gnostics.
I know long posts are a pain - but as a devout Christian, wolfsbane, I'm sure you relish the opportunity to become better acquainted with passages with which you're not as familiar as you should be:
Thank you for bringing our attention to those passages. I am however quite familiar with them. It is just that I didn't see the revelance of them to hairyheretic's original question, Flipping your argue around for a moment, look at those who do evil in the name of religion. Do you think your god, or indeed any god, wants people lying, hating, and murdering his name?
Lying, hating, murdering implies at least an unrighteous aspect. The list you give is of divinely sanctioned punishments on sinners. Most of us agree that the State has a duty to punish criminals; God has an even greater right. Your only objection could be to dispute the fairness of His judgement. I took it our hairy friend was thinking of the Crusades or something like that, ie, actions not commanded by God and in fact explicitly forbidden.0 -
Wibbs makes a good point;
Funny thing about Sapiens post with the biblical quotes. None of them are the words of Jesus himself. I always found it strange that Christianity, put so much store in sources such as Paul that never even met the man they followed.
Christianity takes both the direct teaching of Christ and those He gave via His apostles as equally the infallible word. This is the claim of the NT itself:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
And in fact Paul did meet the Lord:
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.0 -
robindch said:
Jesus says that abandoning your wife + kids is ok
In the real world, sometimes being faithful to Christ brings just that: the Hindu and Moslem especially know that converting to Christ may well mean losing one's family. Others have lost their families by being imprisoned for their faith - in Communist regimes this was pretty common. These Christians did not abandon their families in the sense you imply.
Jesus says that hating your family is good
This is hyperbole, as can be seen if you look at what the rest of Scripture teaches about our duties to love one another. The meaning is, we are to love Christ even if that means losing all the other things we love, including our own life.
Jesus comes to sow hatred
The hatred is not of the Christian to the unbeliver - but the reverse. Christ is saying His message will cause those who love Him to be hated, sometimes even by their own families.
If one's only requirement for truth is the appearance of a supporting phrase from the bible, then you can prove just about whatever you want to.
Very true. That is why one must be careful in handling Scripture. Prayerful, diligent study is mandated:
2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.0 -
Advertisement
-
You are beginning to become ruffled. The fact, of course, is that there was a gap in your logic - which required an ad hoc amendment. So now what we have is: in order to be convinced, one must be brought to the brink of belief by earthly forces, then tipped over the edge into certainty by the Divine finger. Fine. But you must realise that it seems like you're making it up as you go along.wolfsbane wrote:I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I now see your problem is indeed a lack of logic. You cannot follow a simple line of reasoning. So here you fail to see that one requirement (direct intervention) does not rule out the need of another (the preaching of the word). Concentrate.
Again - you Christians and your lack of imagination. Sigh.wolfsbane wrote:There is no reason why you could not believe that Christ was fully divine, only son of the one living God, etcetera, without believing he was omniscient.
A strange definition of God. One who is ignorant of basic facts of His creation? Even theistic evolutionists believe He did originally create everything. No, Sapien, one cannot get your sort of God from the Bible. One has to reject one concept or the other.
Ok - I have an hypothesis for you to consider:
The universe and all life was created just as scientists say, but by the will of an all-powerful God (which scientists have no business saying). Christ is sent by this God, with full and omniscient understanding of the origin of all things, to preach to his people. He is asked by an elderly Galilean basket weaver one Thursday morning: "Lord, from whence did the universe come?" Christ replies: "Well, Jimithia, that's actually a difficult question to deal with, because you are asking in three dimensional terms what can only be answered in four dimensions. What would have seemed to us as the beginning of the universe, was in fact just a high-energy point on a Ricci surface. Ricci won't be born for about 2,000 years or so, so you can wait for him to explain the rest."
Jimithia, somewhat bewildered, responds: "Right. But we, Lord, your children - how did we come to be?" Christ: "First, my child, you must understand that the characteristics of all living creatures are encoded in complex long molecules stores in the cells of your body called deoxyribo..."
Does this make sense? However much Christ understood - he would have used the language of the Scriptures anyway. He may have known they were fables, perhaps conveying deep truths. Would he have said: "Hey, guys, don't take it too literally. Sheesh! Talking snakes - are you serious!", or would he have drawn from an existing vocabulary of concepts and devices?
However much mawkishness you pore over the issue you cannot avoid the fact that these people, whoever they were, were only in a position to understand so much. Even if they were directed by God in what they set down, there is only so much God could have lead them to know. Even now, in the era of Relativity, QM and String Theory, we do not claim to know everything, to have anything more than a preliminary idea of the nature of the Universe. If some intelligence were to reveal to us the ultimate truth, it would have to do so through allegory and approximations. The same would have been even more true five thousand years ago. Frankly, objecting to modern theories because of a literal interpretation of the Bible is equivalent, even if we are to assume that God exists, to standing up in a postgraduate lecture on thermodynamics and objecting because of inconsistencies with what you had been taught in pre-school.wolfsbane wrote:Yes. They were not the thick peasants you imply. They were the people who invented music, mathematics, who built great edifices, who invented writing. Were the Semites a sub-normal class, or did they at least enjoy the capacities of the rest of mankind? So, Yes, they would have expected us to take their history as real, and many laid down their lives rather than deny it.
You seem to have no idea whatsoever what Gnosticism is.wolfsbane wrote:They are either fools or not Christians at all. On what basis can they believe their God has really made atonement for their sins? If they have your view of Scripture, all their beliefs are up for debate, indeed totally subjective. I think you must be talking about the Gnostics.
Why is it so difficult for you to consider the notion that an omniscient God might choose to convey complex truths inconceivable to a primitive society through soft, pretty stories?
Is there any distinction between the slaughters during the Crusades, and those in Sodom, or Jericho, or Beth-Shemeth aside from the fact that some happen to be in the Bible and others not? Of course, had the Bible been written later, or had it been supplemented at a later point, the Crusades would have been recorded with exactly the same divine imperatives.wolfsbane wrote:Lying, hating, murdering implies at least an unrighteous aspect. The list you give is of divinely sanctioned punishments on sinners. Most of us agree that the State has a duty to punish criminals; God has an even greater right. Your only objection could be to dispute the fairness of His judgement. I took it our hairy friend was thinking of the Crusades or something like that, ie, actions not commanded by God and in fact explicitly forbidden.
Is precedence not a valid principle when interpreting the Bible? We read that God commanded response B to action A. We observe action A. Do we really need to be contacted personally by God, or can we deduce from the Bible what the required response is.0 -
J C wrote:The Painting of the ‘Creation of Adam’ in the Sistine Chapel DOES prove that the RCC once held that the Direct Divine Creation of Man was both important and true.
The problem with this one JC is that one could equally spin it the other way and say that the Roman Catholic Church (please remember that there was an objection raised to the usage of RC or RCC before), used the image to push onto the faithful the church's desire to to have this version of the Genesis story be the accepted one. That is why I said you cannot use it to validate your argument. Lets just leave it as art, shall we.
0 -
Sapien said:
you must realise that it seems like you're making it up as you go along.
Not if you are familiar with the NT. It clearly sets out both the use of means (preaching the gospel) and the determined end (the conversion of the elect). You contention is with the Bible, not me.
Does this make sense? However much Christ understood - he would have used the language of the Scriptures anyway. He may have known they were fables, perhaps conveying deep truths. Would he have said: "Hey, guys, don't take it too literally. Sheesh! Talking snakes - are you serious!", or would he have drawn from an existing vocabulary of concepts and devices?...these people, whoever they were, were only in a position to understand so much....If some intelligence were to reveal to us the ultimate truth, it would have to do so through allegory and approximations. The same would have been even more true five thousand years ago....Why is it so difficult for you to consider the notion that an omniscient God might choose to convey complex truths inconceivable to a primitive society through soft, pretty stories?
We are not talking about ultimate truth, not even the complexities of science. We are talking about a simple explanation of origins. The primary school child can today tell you that the world came about after a big bang formed the universe and after millions of years the planets formed and eventually simple life formed in the seas. This evolved over millions of years into all the lifeforms we see today. Straight-forward? Yes, and just as easily understood by the people of 5000 years ago. If Christ had believed that, He could have told it just as easily as He did the Biblical account. His hearers were not intellectual neanderthals - you really should shed this elitist prejudice.
You seem to have no idea whatsoever what Gnosticism is.
Er, did they not see beyond all the literal stuff, into the 'deep truths' hidden from lesser intellects? The Church had missed the real message of the real Jesus because they read the Bible at face value, but the Gnostics understood the metaphors and were guardians of these truths.
Is there any distinction between the slaughters during the Crusades, and those in Sodom, or Jericho, or Beth-Shemeth aside from the fact that some happen to be in the Bible and others not? Of course, had the Bible been written later, or had it been supplemented at a later point, the Crusades would have been recorded with exactly the same divine imperatives.
Is there any distinction between the execution of a murderer in Huntsville, Texas and the execution of a rival mobster in Boston, MA? Yes, one is authorised by lawful authority, the other is murder. The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. were unlawful acts carried out in the name of God but without His consent. Claiming to be acting in His name conveys no legitimacy.
John 16:1 “These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. 3 And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me.
Is precedence not a valid principle when interpreting the Bible? We read that God commanded response B to action A. We observe action A. Do we really need to be contacted personally by God, or can we deduce from the Bible what the required response is.
No, we do not need to be contacted personally by God. Precedent is one of the principles we use, but not the only one. More important than that is the explicit command of God. When we read what He requires of us today, that governs our responses. The NT sets out clearly that Christians are not to persecute anyone for their religion, rather to love them and seek to persuade them to be saved from the coming wrath.0 -
Quote Robin
The bible is a large, rambling book with plenty to appeal to anybody who reads only small bits of it, or believes in the literal truth of small bits of it. People will tend to home in on whatever supports their own pre-conceptions of the world, and cheerfully ignore the rest, either by saying that it's not important, or meant to be read as allegory, or some other hand-wave.
To re-inforce this, lets take a look at some of the less-often reported bits of what Jesus says:
Quote:
Jesus says that abandoning your wife + kids is ok -- And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. [Matthew 19:29]
Quote:
Jesus says that hating your family is good - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. [Luke 14:26]
Quote:
Jesus comes to sow hatred - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her smother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. [Matthew 10:34]
Now we’re getting the “heavy duty” atheism that Wolfbane referred to earlier.
Firstly, could I put Jesus Christ’s statements into context? They were made at a time when there were no Christians on Earth and all of His audience were practicing Jews whom Jesus knew would mostly reject Him as Messiah.
Jesus Christ was ‘levelling’ with anybody who wished to become His disciple that they would be in for a “tough time” from everybody and especially from their own family members.
Jesus Christ DIDN’T come to sow hatred – but He knew that His message would only be accepted by a minority of people – and because it was the TRUTH it would generate hatred from it’s OPPONENTS.
He also knew that there is an enormous spiritual gulf between the saved and the un-saved and He predicted that some of the most dogged resistance to new Christians’ would be experienced from their closest unsaved relatives. This thread shows that this hatred of the TRUTH still persists in an attenuated form right up to the present day.
Could I say that Jesus Christ DIDN’T say “that abandoning your wife + kids is ok.” What He DID say was that if a man HAD to leave his family BECAUSE his family rejected him due to his decision to become a Christian – then the heart-rending SACRIFICE made by that person would be rewarded one hundred fold. In this regard Jesus Christ fully supported the principle of Christian Marriage and in fact confirmed that the marriage bond was of God and must not be separated by man except in the case of adultery.
All of these passages actually underscores the over-riding IMPORTANCE of being saved – and Jesus was emphasising that being saved is more important than ANYTHING else including your own life and your relationships with those who are nearest and dearest to you. In other words your relationship with God must come first – and all other relationships next.
Jesus basically said that if it comes down to a choice between ANYTHING ELSE and being saved, a person should always choose being saved. This actually makes sense, because everything in this World including your own life and your relationships with other people are temporary – while the next life is eternal – and there is therefore logically “no contest” between a person’s decision to be saved and any other issue.
Quote Asisprod
The problem with this one JC is that one could equally spin it the other way and say that the Roman Catholic Church (please remember that there was an objection raised to the usage of RC or RCC before), used the image to push onto the faithful the church's desire to to have this version of the Genesis story be the accepted one. That is why I said you cannot use it to validate your argument. Lets just leave it as art, shall we
You can argue that ‘black is white’ if you so wish but as I have said the Roman Catholic Church has historically held to the veracity of Genesis and the Direct Creation of Adam by God. I think that their commissioning of one of the greatest artists of his time to paint a picture of the ‘creation of Adam by God’ proves beyond all doubt that they believed this to be both important and true. If they DID believe in evolution at the time, then they kept it very quiet – and Michelangelo DIDN'T include any APES in the painting!!!
My basic point is that it is a historical FACT that Theistic Evolution is a new post-modern phenomenon that has entered Christian Churches in the mistaken belief that Science has somehow "proven" evolution to be true. Some well-meaning people (as well as some not so well meaning) have made the most amazing contortions of logic to make Genesis "fit" into an evolutionary account of the "Creation of the Universe and all life". However, Theistic Evolution is neither theologically nor scientifically valid.
P.S. RCC is to the Roman Catholic Church as USA is to the United States of America i.e. they are both fully respectful shorhand abbreviations for these institutions and I therefore see no reason for anybody taking offence at the terms RC, RCC or USA.0 -
J C wrote:If they DID believe in evolution at the time, then they kept it very quiet – and Michelangelo wasn’t told to include any APES in the painting!!!
JC, I think you may be onto something here. That is probably exactly what happened. Good we can agree on something. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Quotable Quotes by evolutionists for evolutionists
Charles Darwin, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species book 1858 – as quoted in ‘John Lofton’s Journal’ in The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
“You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts”.
Charles Darwin Introduction to Origin of Species, pp 2. Also quoted in ‘John Lofton’s Journal’ in The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived”.
Charles Darwin, ‘On the imperfection of the geological record’, Chapter x, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971, pp 292-293.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
Dr. David M Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, ‘Conflicts between Darwin and palaeontology’ Field Musem of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50(1) January 1979, pp 25.
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition that we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”
Prof H S Lipton FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, ‘Origin of species’ in ‘Letters’, New Scientist, 14 May 1981 pp 452.
“Darwin’s book – On the Origin of Species – I find quite unsatisfactory. It says nothing about the origin of species, it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on “Difficulties on theory” and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does NOT exist in the fossil record”.
Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University. ‘Evolution’s erratic pace’ Natural History, vol LXXXVI (5) May 1977 pp 14.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record.”
Prof George Gaylord Simpson Ph D. Late Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. ‘The Major Features of Evolution’ Columbia University Press, New York, 1953 pp 360.
“It remains true, as every palaeontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families and nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
Professor Ronald R West Ph D., (Palaeontology and Geology), Professor of Palaeobiology, Kansas State University, ‘Palaeoecology and uniformitarianism’ Compass vol. 45 May 1968 pp 216.
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
Prof.E. J. H. Corner, Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK, ‘Evolution in contemporary Botanical Thought, Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 1961 pp 97.
“Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm have come from a common ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most (of us) would break down before an inquisition.”
Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London 1971 pp xi.
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in Special Creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”
(PLEASE NOTE:- That quote was from 1971 – I can NOW confirm that the latest breakthroughs in Molecular Biology and Intelligent Design Research HAS settled the issue – in favour of Special Direct Creation).
Dr. David B. Kitts Ph D (Zoology), School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. ‘Palaeontology and evolutionary theory’. Evolution vol. 28 September 1974, pp 466.
“Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.”
Prof. Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology, Stanford University and L Charles Birch, Professor of Biology, University of Sydney ‘Evolutionary history and population biology’. Nature vol. 214 22 April 1967 pp 352.
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity.”
Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University in a speech in October 1983, as reported in ‘John Lofton’s Journal’ in The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
“We’re not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we’re not evolving. There’s no reason to think we’re going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever – we are what we are.”
Dr. Loren Eiseley Ph.D. (anthropology), ‘The secret of life’ in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957.
“With the failure of these many efforts (to synthesise life) evolutionary science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, (evolutionary) science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it’s own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proven to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”
Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, in ‘Evolution of Living Organisms' Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp 88.
“Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve.
This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious or general; second, because its conclusions does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.
Dr Stephen C Meyer, Director of The Discovery Institute Centre for Science & Culture, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Vol 117 no 2 pp 213-219 2004.
“Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks – almost by definition – are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality – with purposeful intelligence……….
For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.”0 -
Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by J C
If The Vatican DID believe in evolution at the time, then they kept it very quiet – and Michelangelo didn’t include any APES in the painting!!!
JC, I think you may be onto something here. That is probably exactly what happened. Good we can agree on something.
Unfortunately, we don’t agree – whatever The Vatican may or may not have privately believed is total conjecture – the important thing was what they PUBLICLY pronounced – which was a belief in Special Direct Creation, up to the 1950’s at least.
The fact that the Sistine Chapel shows various scenes from Genesis proves that The Vatican’s public position was fully supportive of Special Divine Creation.
The apparent recent public conversion of The Vatican to Darwinian Evolution is therefore all the more surprising – especially in view of the severe scientific problems that Darwin himself had with ‘molecules to Man’ evolution, as my posting above illustrates.0 -
J C wrote:Unfortunately, we don’t agree
Damn, and just when I thought we were making progress.J C wrote:whatever The Vatican may or may not have privately believed is total conjecture
It seems that you are pretty sure on what they believed from your posts...do you have inside information.J C wrote:the important thing was what they PUBLICLY pronounced
Really, thats a very weak argument, how many times have they been caught out where their public face and private face were 180 degrees out of sync. In case you need a nudge, think Fines report.J C wrote:The fact that the Sistine Chapel shows various scenes from Genesis proves that The Vatican’s public position was fully supportive of Special Divine Creation.
It does not, not by a long shot and it also does not support you arguments.J C wrote:The apparent recent public conversion of The Vatican to Darwinian Evolution is therefore all the more surprising
Not at all, what is surprising is you as a scientist are not prepared to accept Darwin but are prepared to put your neck on the line for a book that was never meant to be taken that literally and was written for people who had not the understanding that we have today. That is what is surprising.J C wrote:especially in view of the severe scientific problems that Darwin himself had with ‘molecules to Man’ evolution, as my posting above illustrates.
JC, I do not mean in anyway to demean you , but INHO NONE of your postings have illustrates this.0 -
I'd just like to add that NO SCIENTIST in the field believes in evolution exactly as Darwin described. Our understanding of evolution has come on leaps and bounds in the last 150 years.
That Darwin wasn't certain on parts of his own theory doesn't in any way invalidate the entire field. That's like people dismissing the whole concept of gravity because Newtonian physics don't hold 100% of the time.0 -
Quote Asiaprod
Originally Posted by J C
The fact that the Sistine Chapel shows various scenes from Genesis proves that The Vatican’s public position was fully supportive of Special Divine Creation.
It does not, not by a long shot and it also does not support you arguments.
OK, so we have a scene painted in the0 -
JC wrote:Why they would be "voicing strong criticism" of Bible-believing Christians is also anybody’s guess!!!!
You voice strong criticism of me, a Bible believing Christian, because I don't view it the same way as you. (!!! EXCLAMATION MARK !!!)
Why do you do that?0 -
-
When Pope Benedict XVI sends you a poison letter, come finish that argument JC.0
-
JC, Woflsbane -
I sit in something close to a limp awe of your verbal dexterity.
Leaving aside the Genesis contradictions which were ignored the last time 'round, you say that Genesis is true because it's written in the bible.
Then, some while later, we hear of a sword-bearing Jesus threatening all that he's "come to set a man at variance against his father, brother, etc, etc", and telling people, under threat of burning in hell, to think of themselves first, ahead of their wife, kids, parents and friends whom one is generally enjoined to honor elsewhere.
And suddenly the meaning of the bible switches, from the unimpeachable vessel of irrefutable and literal truths, to a weak and mushy thing, in need of interpretation and the odd right-angle bend here and there.
In all honesty, have either of you ever questioned anything you believe? Even once?0 -
Robindch said:
Leaving aside the Genesis contradictions which were ignored the last time 'round
I thought I had dealt with your 'contradictions' - maybe you didn't like the answers?
we hear of a sword-bearing Jesus threatening all that he's "come to set a man at variance against his father, brother, etc, etc",
The 'sword' was the antagonism His truth brought upon Himself and His followers, not any violence He or they would do. He specifically forbade even defensive violence in response to His arrest.
and telling people, under threat of burning in hell, to think of themselves first, ahead of their wife, kids, parents and friends whom one is generally enjoined to honor elsewhere.
As already pointed out, it was not themselves they were to put first, but Christ:
Matthew 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
from the unimpeachable vessel of irrefutable and literal truths, to a weak and mushy thing, in need of interpretation and the odd right-angle bend here and there.
As I said, no Christian believes all the Bible is to be taken literally. Narrative, metaphor, etc. are used as in any communication. The issue regarding theistic evolution centred on whether the seemingly literal interpretation of Genesis by the New Testament writers must be taken metaphorically. I asked the theistic evolutionists to justify that by exegeting those texts to offer an explanation that held Genesis as a metaphor but prevented the deity of Christ being reduced to the same.
You did see the comments of Jesus and the apostles on Genesis? Do you agree that they appear to hold Genesis literally, building ethical precepts upon actual events? Do you not see that if we insist those words are metaphorical, then there can be no reason to insist Jesus' and the apostles' presentation of Christ as God not also be metaphorical?
In all honesty, have either of you ever questioned anything you believe? Even once?
Yes, I have questioned my beliefs on several doctrines of Scripture many times. That led me to change some of them. For example, I once believed in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture - now I see that the Church goes through the end-time Tribulation. I used to believe in a thousand year reign of Christ on earth following His return - now I think that is figurative of this present gospel age. I am open to persuasion. Here are real difficulties of literal vs. figurative; they are given in prophecies that both sides acknowledge contain literal and metaphoric. It is a matter of sorting out which is which. Unlike the Genesis interpretation given in the New Testament, where the context is solidly literal.0 -
Advertisement
-
wolfsbane wrote:
I am open to persuasion.
Unlike the Genesis interpretation given in the New Testament, where the context is solidly literal.
That sounds very much to me like a contradiction in terms. How can you be open to persuasion when you have firmly clossed the door on evolution. All you have left is a one-sided argument. You paint yourself into a corner and have no recourse other that maintain your stance. That is not being open to persuasion, IMHO0 -
Asiaprod said:
That sounds very much to me like a contradiction in terms. How can you be open to persuasion when you have firmly clossed the door on evolution. All you have left is a one-sided argument. You paint yourself into a corner and have no recourse other that maintain your stance. That is not being open to persuasion, IMHO
I have also firmly closed the door on Christ being a Martian. The thing I 'know', my presupposition if you like, is that the Bible is the infallible word of God. It reveals the truth about whatever it asserts. So you will see I cannot be open to anything it clearly denies. I am open to persuasion on things that are not so clear.
I'm sure you are the same about things you 'know', eg., black is not white, your personal identity, the number of fingers on your hand. If these things are open to question, there is little point doing the questioning, for reality itself then cannot be known.0 -
Quote JustHalf
That Darwin wasn't certain on parts of his own theory doesn't in any way invalidate the entire field. That's like people dismissing the whole concept of gravity because Newtonian physics don't hold 100% of the time.
Could I borrow your analogy, and ask how many people would believe Newton if Apples were ALWAYS observed to NOT fall to Earth?
Quote Excelsior
You voice strong criticism of me, a Bible believing Christian, because I don't view it the same way as you.
I have NEVER voiced any criticism of other Bible Believing Christians.
Indeed as a sinner saved by God’s Grace, I know that Jesus Christ came to save and not to condemn anybody who places his or her faith in Jesus and believes on Him.
As a Bible Believing Christian, Excelsior, would you please tell me what you understand to be the meaning of the word “DAY” in following passage of Holy Scripture :-
“But the seventh DAY is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (Ex 20:11 NIV).
Also please explain what you believe the words “at the beginning of Creation” actually mean. These words were spoken by Jesus Christ about the creation of Mankind in Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them male and female.” (NIV).
I also look forward to the Pope, or indeed yourself, explaining the theological reasons for the Vatican’s apparent ‘about turn’ from its strong Creationist position up to the 1950’s to it’s current “stout defence of Charles Darwin (and its) voicing of strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution” to quote a recent Irish Independent report on the matter.
What exactly IS the Vatican’s position on the ‘origins issue’ – and is it true, as other media reports indicate, that there is currently a major debate between Creationists and Evolutionists within Roman Catholicism?0 -
JC, the Pope has actually never made me a representative of him. As someone who isn't part of his church I would be an unusual choice.
As someone employed in theological work for an evangelical organisation, I would in fact be a bizarre choice. So I'll just leave that invite of yours alone. 0 -
just read the hole 14 pages there, and it was all really interesting, good views from both sides if a little dismisive of each others view and proofs at times. So I just thought I'd add my two cents.
I personally have great difficulty believing in any thing without solid proof. However I was raised a Catholic and so have had Christian views imbedded in myself from a very young age. I also went on the study evolution, physics, biolodgy and theolodgy but from reading your posts it seems to a much lesser degree than a lot of you.
So at present I find myself really wanting to believe in God against the lack of proof I have seen. My current personal theory one the creation of life, the only one that satisfies my varios beliefs, is as follows without going into too much detail
That the earth was a lifeless ball of elements, chemicals, metals ect and over the course of millions of years these chemicals were mixxed into billions of different combinations until finally, although virtually mathematically impossible the right combination of chemicals bounded, reacted and effected each other to produce the base of life and then began to evolve and change to adapt to changing enviroment and to cope with the lack of space and sustanance in certain evironments. Leading to all the varriations of life we have today.
Although this is pretty much just evolutionary theory. I like to think that with out the hand of God in the begining willing the right combination of elements and chemicals and heat and radiation ect into perfect sync at the perfect time in the perfect place then the Earth might have missed its chance.
Although from previous posts it seems most of you will disagree with this theory, It hasn't been but forward in 14 pages of text so I felt it was worth stating.0 -
Quote Asiaprod
How can you be open to persuasion when you have firmly closed the door on evolution. All you have left is a one-sided argument. You paint yourself into a corner and have no recourse other that maintain your stance. That is not being open to persuasion, IMHO
As a Christian, I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. I am also acutely aware that some incorrect interpretations of scripture have been made in the past.
As the Word of God is present in both the Bible and in all of Creation, neither can contradict the other – therefore when an apparent conflict arises this is due to EITHER a misinterpretation of scripture OR an erroneous scientific conclusion.
When such a conflict arises (as in the ‘origins issue’) I study both the latest scientific research (from ALL sources) on the matter as well as examining what the Bible says. I am always open to the reality that the conflict may be either a misinterpretation of scripture OR an erroneous scientific conclusion and I therefore HAVE approached this issue with an open mind to either possibility.
As a scientist I am open to ALL Scientific Theories i.e. PRECISE descriptions and explanations of OBSERVED phenomena that are accessible to TESTING by repeatable observation or experimentation. I therefore never firmly close the door on anything, including evolution, unlike many secular evolutionists, who appear to have firmly closed the door on Direct Creation, despite a significant body of empirical and circumstantial evidence in support of it’s veracity.
I am unaware of any precise description of ‘molecules to Man’ evolution (or it’s constituent stages) that has been proven by empirical observations or experimentation. As a scientist, I therefore must classify evolution as a speculative belief system – while remaining OPEN to ANY scientific evidence that may be presented in it’s support. Please inform me of any such evidence that you may be aware of and I promise that I WILL evaluate it.
Quote Excelsior
As someone employed in theological work for an evangelical organisation ......
As an Evangelical, Bible Believing Christian and Theistic Evolutionist could I ask you AGAIN to answer the following two simple questions and explain how they are consistent with evolution :-
1. Please tell me what you understand to be the meaning of the word “DAY” in following passage of Scripture :-
“But the seventh DAY is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (Ex 20:11 NIV).
2. Please explain what you believe the words “at the beginning of Creation” actually mean. These words were spoken by Jesus Christ about the creation of Mankind in Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them male and female.” (NIV).0 -
Quote Slipss
That the earth was a lifeless ball of elements, chemicals, metals ect and over the course of millions of years these chemicals were mixxed into billions of different combinations until finally, although virtually mathematically impossible the right combination of chemicals bounded, reacted and effected each other to produce the base of life and then began to evolve and change to adapt to changing enviroment and to cope with the lack of space and sustanance in certain evironments. Leading to all the varriations of life we have today.
Although this is pretty much just evolutionary theory. I like to think that with out the hand of God in the begining willing the right combination of elements and chemicals and heat and radiation ect into perfect sync at the perfect time in the perfect place then the Earth might have missed its chance.
Your words above pretty well summarises the current Theistic Evolutionary Position. Could I point out two things about this position:
1. You will look in vain for any confirmation of these ideas within the covers of The Bible, which is God’s infallible Word on the subject.
2. You will also look in vain for any repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) evidence that supports a ‘molecules to Man’ evolutionary belief.
Your statement that evolution is “virtually mathematically impossible” should leave out the word “virtually” – evolution has been proven to BE mathematically impossible.
Jesus Christ the Alpha and the Omega WAS present at the moment of Creation and this same Jesus Christ suffered the indignity of becoming a man and dying on a cross to repair the gap that sin causes between God and Man. ALL that He asks you and I to do in return is to repent of our sins and believe on Him.
God just wasn’t there at the beginning as you have stated, and He didn’t just start some “evolutionary ball rolling” – He created ALL of the amazing purposeful genetic information that Modern Science now knows to be present in every living cell.
All of life and the amazing Universe that we see around us declare the Glory of God – who LOVED you and me so much that He died that we both might live eternally with Him in Heaven.
All you need to do is say but the words “I believe on Jesus Christ” and you will be saved.0 -
If Robindch just wrote those words, would that do JC? Cos you know, I think I could convince him it was worth the risk. I really do wonder what world you occupy that justifaction by faith alone becomes justification by vocalisation followed by Creation Science adherence.
I believe that the word Yorn used in Genesis 1-3 refers to eon. I believe that the use of the word Yorn, which in other contexts can mean day is therefore figurative.
As it is a figurative usage in Genesis, so too is it a figurative parallel drawn in Exodus 22.
I believe that Jesus is the exact representation of God of the Father and all that comes with that JC. I also think that he lived amongst primitive, oppressed Palestinian Jews and taught them a message of liberation into the Kingdom of God. His point was not to lecture on science and his hearers could not grasp science. So I understand the passage you refer to as a reference to the creation of humankind. In simple terms, humans came in 2 flavours from the get-go, cos God wanted it that way.
So let me sum this up for you:
Passage 1: Figurative is as figurative does
Passage 2: Jesus says "I made you guys the way you are. Go me. Now follow me."0 -
Quote Excelsior
I really do wonder what world you occupy that justification by faith alone becomes justification by vocalisation followed by Creation Science adherence
Yes indeed, we are justified by faith in the Word of God in the Bible and in all of Creation – but certainly not in “vocalisation followed by Creation Science adherence” (though they may both be important in proclaiming and studying the Word of God respectively).
Quote Excelsior
I believe that the word Yorn used in Genesis 1-3 refers to eon. I believe that the use of the word Yorn, which in other contexts can mean day is therefore figurative.
If Yom DOES mean Eon in Genesis 1-3, how do you explain the glaring anomalies between the description of the ‘6 Eons of evolution’ supposedly in Gen 1 and The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence?
Quote Excelsior
As it is a figurative usage in Genesis, so too is it a figurative parallel drawn in Exodus 22.
OK, So taking this interpretation Ex 20:8-11 would read as follows:-
“Remember the Sabbath EON by keeping it holy, Six EONS you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh EON is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six EONS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh EON” (NIV).
Sounds like a very LONG week – and a very LONG Sabbath!
Quote Excelsior
I also think that he (Jesus Christ) lived amongst primitive, oppressed Palestinian Jews and taught them a message of liberation into the Kingdom of God.
And presumably you also believe that Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus for the equally oppressed ‘primitive people’ who built the Pyramids!!
However, the problem with this ‘primitive people’ theory is that very rapidly, the entire Word of God become something written for ‘primitive people’ – with a consequential conclusion in relation to the ‘primitive’ nature of it’s author and indeed anybody else who bothers to read it.
Quote Excelsior
His point was not to lecture on science and his hearers could not grasp science.
Could I point out that it would be just as easy for a putative ‘primitive person’ to grasp the idea that we are all descended from pond-scum as it would be to understand that we were Directly Created by God.
There was also no need for Jesus and Moses to COMPLICATE the simple message that all life is descended from pond-scum with a VERY COMPLEX ACCOUNT of the sequence of Special Creation – unless it was TRUE.
Equally, God could have just said that the Fourth Commandment demanded that everyone rest on every seventh day as a ‘health and safety’ issue. However, He DOESN’T do this, but links the Seven Day Week DIRECTLY to His Creation WEEK – why would He do that unless Creation Week existed and it WAS a Seven Day Week as well?
Quote Excelsior
I understand the passage you refer to as a reference to the creation of humankind. In simple terms, humans came in 2 flavours from the get-go, cos God wanted it that way.
The passage that I referred to was Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them MALE AND FEMALE.” (NIV).
This was a direct reference to Gen 1:27 “So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created HIM, male and female He created THEM.
“At the beginning of Creation” can ONLY have one logical meaning, which is that the Creation of Mankind was at the very start of Creation – and NOT after billions of years.
You are also not FULLY correct in your statement that “humans came in 2 flavours from the get-go”.
Mk10:6 is directly dependent on Gen 1:27 for it’s FULL meaning.
Gen 1:27 confirms that the sequence of the creation of Mankind was firstly a single man Adam “in the image of God He created HIM” and subsequently Eve “male and female He created THEM. This sequence is also confirmed in Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:21-22.
Quote Excelsior
Jesus says "I made you guys the way you are. Go me. Now follow me."
Truly a ‘simple statement for simple folk’.
But how do you explain what Jesus Christ ACTUALLY said in Mk 10:6 “but at the BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them male and female.” (NIV).
Why would Jesus bother to make an issue of the fact that Mankind was created at the same time as the World was created if it was unimportant or indeed untrue?0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Yes indeed, we are justified by faith in the Word of God in the Bible and in all of Creation – but certainly not in “vocalisation followed by Creation Science adherence” (though they may both be important in proclaiming and studying the Word of God respectively).
I'd always thought I was justified by faith in Jesus, not by faith in justification by faith.JC wrote:If Yom DOES mean Eon in Genesis 1-3, how do you explain the glaring anomalies between the description of the ‘6 Eons of evolution’ supposedly in Gen 1 and The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence?
I will repeat this again. I do not think Genesis 1-3 is particularly concerned with the mechanics of Creation.JC wrote:OK, So taking this interpretation Ex 20:8-11 would read as follows:-
“Remember the Sabbath EON by keeping it holy, Six EONS you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh EON is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor the alien within your gates. For in six EONS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh EON” (NIV).
Well it would only read that way if you tried to take my initial position of:
Figruative -> Figurative
and tried to read it as:
Figurative -> LiteralJC wrote:... He DOESN’T do this, but links the Seven Day Week DIRECTLY to His Creation WEEK – why would He do that unless Creation Week existed and it WAS a Seven Day Week as well?
Why do we have Sabbath? Because God teaches us that taking time out to savour our work is good, just as he did. It has the nice side effect of fitting in with our human physical constraints. Moses, author of both Genesis 1-3 and Exodus 22 links these 2 ideas, God's appreciative rest after Creation with our appreciative rest after our toil and creation. There is nothing inconsistent in me saying that the allusion is a strict parrallelism between 2 figurative constructs.
Let me be clear again for anyone reading in to this debate. God, through his author Moses, links the rest of the Creation week with our week because we are different from all other created things in that we ourselves have the power to create. And like our Creator, we should take time to appreciate our (and more importantly his) efforts on a regular basis.JC wrote:And presumably you also believe that Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus for the equally oppressed ‘primitive people’ who built the Pyramids!!
The people who built the Pyramids were primitive. As were the people who built Newgrange. Only someone who has utterly absorbed the myth of progress that underlies the modernist Enlightenment era project (of which I classify Creation Science as a perverse off-shoot) could see this as an insult. The people of Jesus' time were no less intelligent or potentially capable than we are today. But they were sociologically primitive.
When I use primitive, I am not insulting, but describing. The people of Jesus' time were pre-Empricism JC. They could understand evolution just fine if someone sat them down and began at the beginning but they didn't have the framework through which to ask scientific questions. The scientific method had not yet been developed/discovered.JC wrote:However, the problem with this ‘primitive people’ theory is that very rapidly, the entire Word of God become something written for ‘primitive people’ – with a consequential conclusion in relation to the ‘primitive’ nature of it’s author and indeed anybody else who bothers to read it.
Well you would be mis-interpreting my words then. I believe the Bible to be the authoritative and inspired communication of the Creator God. It is relevant to everyone and it is written to apply to everyone. Even people born before or outside the influence of Newton. It is for this reason and not some oversight, that it does not answer scientific questions.JC wrote:Could I point out that it would be just as easy for a putative ‘primitive person’ to grasp the idea that we are all descended from pond-scum as it would be to understand that we were Directly Created by God.
We were directly created by God JC. At least, I think we were. But like a potter forming clay (to use a Biblical illustration), God used the pottery wheel of evolution to directly form us.
The reason, once again, that Jesus does not get into discussions about double helixes and chromosomes is that it is irrelevant to his mission. We are here. We are burdened. We are not in relationship with God. Jesus addressing these things does not require him to lay out excercise patterns for us, the correct method for building our houses or the evolution of our genetics.JC wrote:There was also no need for Jesus and Moses to COMPLICATE the simple message that all life is descended from pond-scum with a VERY COMPLEX ACCOUNT of the sequence of Special Creation – unless it was TRUE.
This very complex account of "Special Creation" (like the other Creations are hum-drum?) takes just over 2000 words. It is structured very deliberately as an allegorical poem marked by extremely sparse writing. It is fantastical to claim that Genesis 1-3 complicates Creation, on a par with arguing for a version of intellectual history based on the paintings of a private chapel in Rome!JC wrote:The passage that I referred to was Mk 10:6 “But AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them MALE AND FEMALE.” (NIV).
This was a direct reference to Gen 1:27 “So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created HIM, male and female He created THEM.
“At the beginning of Creation” can ONLY have one logical meaning, which is that the Creation of Mankind was at the very start of Creation – and NOT after billions of years.
I know the passage JC. Jesus isn't talking here about Creation at all. He is talking about divorce. It is funny, is it not, that the Creator God incarnated as man would support his "Special Creation" with a half sentence in a teaching on divorce?
As I understand it, there is another logical interpretation of the sentence you quite arbitrarily throw at me. That is, the focus of the sentence is the creation of mankind. At the beginning of this creation, God decided the form of mankind and made them different from all else, in that they were of his image.
I said>>> Jesus says "I made you guys the way you are. Go me. Now follow me."JC wrote:Truly a ‘simple statement for simple folk’.
But I don't think that the people Jesus was talking to were any different or less intellectually capable than the people today. You have so comepletely misunderstood me once again.
I understand Mark 10:6 to be a part of Jesus' teaching on divorce. Like all the teaching on sexuality in the Bible, this teaching is grounded in the divine image-bearingness of humans. Jesus is saying that at the beginnign of humankind, we were created differently to other things and this feeds into his teaching on divorce. I don't think it has anything to do with "Special Creation", 6 days, Charles Darwin or Intelligent Design.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement