|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 31, 2004 23:35:41 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "Were the personages of Genesis 1 thorugh 11 literal, or figurative. You have already indicated that Adam and Eve were figurative. What of Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, the sons of Noah, Nimrod, and Abraham?"
Whether Adam, Eve, or any of the other figures in those pkmtyolpages were historical or not is really irrelevant. A figurative interpretation of those pkmtyolpages is capable of remaining true regardless of whether they really existed or not, I'm comfortable with either possibility.
--TDv2.0
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 1, 2004 1:43:20 GMT -5
Jesus spoke of the days of Noe (Noah) as though he were a real flesh and blood guy. If Jesus said he was a literal figure - wouldn't that be proof enough?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 1, 2004 5:47:59 GMT -5
"And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the Earth after his kind: and it was so (Genesis 1:24)." "Notice that the Scriptures declare that species would reproduce after their own "kind." Despite the fact that the theory of evolution has been almost universally embraced by scientists, intellectuals, educators and the media for over a century until quite recently, new scientific discoveries in the last two decades have revealed that evolution is now collapsing. Numerous secular books have been published in the last two decades by leading biologists, genetic researchers, and astronomers who have now rejected evolution as a theory that is unsupported by scientific evidence. As this chapter will demonstrate, numerous scientists have now finally admitted that they have accepted and taught evolution despite the lack of evidence primarily because the only logical alternative theory - Creation - was unacceptable. One of the difficulties in understanding the truth about the theory of evolution is that we must clearly define and distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution describes the very small mutations and variations that scientists find over time that occur within species. These small genetic changes may lead to a variation of a species, such as birds that develop slightly larger beaks to adapt to changed environmental conditions. However, they still remain the original bird species. Cattle breeders use breeding techniques to develop cattle that yield more milk. However, they can never develop new tissues or organs. For example, scientists have observed gradual changes in the breeds of cattle that farmers have purposely crossbred over decades to enhance the amount of lean meat or the amount of milk yield. Those who support Creation acknowledge that these small microevolutionary variations within a species obviously occur. Microevolutionary changes do not contradict the divine revelation in the Word of God that declares God's command recorded in Genesis 1:24: "Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." Slight microevolutionary change remains only a variation within the species and "after his kind" as affirmed by Scripture. Macroevolution, however, is the general theory of evolution that claims untold random mutations somehow provide survival advantages over long periods, producing an entirely new species. The theory holds that these changes are reproduced generation after generation until the major changes actually produce an entirely different species that never before existed. While microevolution does exist, there is no scientific evidence to show that macroevolution occurs or has occurred, as this chapter will later demonstrate." - quote from Grant R.Jeffrey's book "Creation". What is the point of quoting the scriptures to someone who doesn't believe they're God's truth? It seems like a waste of time. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 1, 2004 5:51:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 1, 2004 5:57:23 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "How do you suggest that one empirically display 'faith?'"We display faith by believing the Bible to be God's Word, and believing Him to be truthful. Having faith does not necessitate that one believe a falsehood. "If GOD said it, and recorded it in His inspired Word, why is there such a gleeful sense of satisfaction that we cannot produce your sops of evidence?"The Creation parable shows that God created, but it takes the physical evidence to show how He created. My satisfaction comes from the fact that my every shred of that evidence is on the side of the presently accepted scientific models, while my opponents' model has none. "We were not there when God laid the foundation of the world"Nor did we need to be in order to determine God's means of creating. "but He told His servant Moses who faithfully recorded it all in Genesis"Once again, if Moses wrote any of Genesis, he was certainly not its only author. "how can you account for your disbelief in God the Creator?"What disbelief? I have never disputed that God is the Creator of all that we experience, it is the young Earth creationists' interpretation of the Creation parable that I dispute, and through the physical evidence, have falsified. "I read where one informed you that God created the world with the 'appearance of age,' and then you turned his statement back on him by suggesting then that God is the deceiver because Creation then is a lie."Because causing a thing to appear other than it is is an act of deception. That statement was not intended to in any way suggest that God is lying to us, but to demonstrate that since He cannot be lying to us, the truth of His Word must be consistent with the truth of His Creation. Since that is the case, and all evidence of His Creation is consistent with the presently accepted scientific models, Scripture must in turn be consistent with those models. Was it a lie when God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils -- as a fully grown man?"The problem here is that you are asking the wrong question. Since the first humans were certainly not formed "out of the dust of the Earth" but instead evolved from our ape-like ancestors, there is no basis for asking if God was lying in that Creation. "You see, you have set yourself up as the authority over the Author of the Scriptues and have proclaimed, 'I don't believe it - you can't prove it! Therefore, it is not possible!'"I have done no such thing. What I have done is present physical evidence of God's Creation and demonstrate that since a literal interpretation of the Creation parable is inconsistent with that evidence, a non-literal interpretation must be adopted. "Is this not an open calling-out of God, and a challenge to His credibility?"No, it is an "open calling-out" of the young Earth creationists, and a challenge to their credibility. "And are you not worshipping and serving the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever and above all?"No. "I suggest that, despite all of your training and letters behind your name, you are playing a very dangerous game."I suggest that you have not actually understood what I have been saying all along. "I think it best that the rest continue to be reminded of what it is you are doing here - and to advise them to stay as far away as possible from 'science falsely so-called.'"What I am doing is showing how the Creation parable can, and must be, interpreted in a non-literal manner to resolve an apparent conflict between the truth of God's Word and the truth of God's Creation. As for your claim that the presently accepted scientific models are "science falsely so-called," if you would have your doubts as to the validity of those models carry any weight, you cannot do so without presenting physical evidence to that effect. Since you have no such evidence, your claims are meaningless. "For we walk by faith, and not by sight."Belief supported by evidence is logic, belief in the absence of evidence is faith, but belief in the absence of evidence is delusion. SJudy - "It states: 'In the beginning....' it does not state when that beginning was..nor does it state how long the earth was void..there are but a few actual timelines in the bible..but I am certain..there is not one between 'In the beginning'...and the creation.."Which is just another reason that if we are to determine the age of God's Creation, we can only do so through the examination of that Creation. --Traf E. Traf Maybe you evolved from an ape, but I accept the truth of God when He said "man was formed of the dust of the ground. You cannot be a Christian, no matter how much you claim to be one. You reject the plain, spelled out truth of the scriptures. That's the same thing the pagans and Satanists do.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Apr 1, 2004 9:17:13 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "How do you suggest that one empirically display 'faith?'"We display faith by believing the Bible to be God's Word, and believing Him to be truthful. Having faith does not necessitate that one believe a falsehood. Believing God's written Word necessitates that we accept the fact that the Genesis account of how He created Adam and Eve is correct."If GOD said it, and recorded it in His inspired Word, why is there such a gleeful sense of satisfaction that we cannot produce your sops of evidence?"The Creation parable shows that God created, but it takes the physical evidence to show how He created. My satisfaction comes from the fact that my every shred of that evidence is on the side of the presently accepted scientific models, while my opponents' model has none. The problem is that your 'evidence' has been deliberately misinterpreted to fit the theory of evolution."We were not there when God laid the foundation of the world"Nor did we need to be in order to determine God's means of creating. I wholly disagree with your highly presumptuous position."but He told His servant Moses who faithfully recorded it all in Genesis"Once again, if Moses wrote any of Genesis, he was certainly not its only author. And who were the other authors, apart from God and Moses?"how can you account for your disbelief in God the Creator?"What disbelief? I have never disputed that God is the Creator of all that we experience, it is the young Earth creationists' interpretation of the Creation parable that I dispute, and through the physical evidence, have falsified. How can you truly claim to believe in the God of the Christian faith when you disbelieve His version of the account of Creation?"I read where one informed you that God created the world with the 'appearance of age,' and then you turned his statement back on him by suggesting then that God is the deceiver because Creation then is a lie."Because causing a thing to appear other than it is is an act of deception. That statement was not intended to in any way suggest that God is lying to us, but to demonstrate that since He cannot be lying to us, the truth of His Word must be consistent with the truth of His Creation. Since that is the case, and all evidence of His Creation is consistent with the presently accepted scientific models, Scripture must in turn be consistent with those models. Was it a lie when God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils -- as a fully grown man?"The problem here is that you are asking the wrong question. Since the first humans were certainly not formed "out of the dust of the Earth" but instead evolved from our ape-like ancestors, there is no basis for asking if God was lying in that Creation. He's not asking the wrong question. He accepts that God always speaks the Truth."You see, you have set yourself up as the authority over the Author of the Scriptues and have proclaimed, 'I don't believe it - you can't prove it! Therefore, it is not possible!'"I have done no such thing. Oh, but you're doing it all the time, refusing to be corrected by what God says. Hardly the behaviour that one expects from a Christian."Is this not an open calling-out of God, and a challenge to His credibility?"No, it is an "open calling-out" of the young Earth creationists, and a challenge to their credibility. We don't care about you questioning our credibility. We do care about the fact that you question our Lord's credibility."And are you not worshipping and serving the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever and above all?"No. "I suggest that, despite all of your training and letters behind your name, you are playing a very dangerous game."I suggest that you have not actually understood what I have been saying all along. "I think it best that the rest continue to be reminded of what it is you are doing here - and to advise them to stay as far away as possible from 'science falsely so-called.'"What I am doing is showing how the Creation parable can, and must be, interpreted in a non-literal manner to resolve an apparent conflict between the truth of God's Word and the truth of God's Creation. As for your claim that the presently accepted scientific models are "science falsely so-called," if you would have your doubts as to the validity of those models carry any weight, you cannot do so without presenting physical evidence to that effect. Since you have no such evidence, your claims are meaningless. "For we walk by faith, and not by sight."Belief supported by evidence is logic, belief in the absence of evidence is faith, but belief in the absence of evidence is delusion. "Belief in the absence of evidence is faith, but belief in the absence of evidence is delusion". So in other words you are saying that "faith = delusion". Well, thank you Traffic for confirming the fact that you are not a Christian. For without true faith in God and everything He says, which you dismiss as delusional, it is impossible to please Him! I say that faith = belief = trust in God. You do not have faith in the God of the Christian faith, so you do not trust His written Word to you which is the Bible.SJudy - "It states: 'In the beginning....' it does not state when that beginning was..nor does it state how long the earth was void..there are but a few actual timelines in the bible..but I am certain..there is not one between 'In the beginning'...and the creation.."Which is just another reason that if we are to determine the age of God's Creation, we can only do so through the examination of that Creation. Which isn't really possible if what you say about life having evolved over several millions of years is anything to go by. We cannot accurately measure the millions of years of the past natural history of our planet. It is as fanciful as the idea that Time travel is even theoretically possible.Andy.
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Apr 1, 2004 10:40:38 GMT -5
Traffic,
It seems mighty strange to me that you can't count on the support of the majority of Christians if you really know what you are talking about.
Andy.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Apr 1, 2004 10:50:21 GMT -5
"but He told His servant Moses who faithfully recorded it all in Genesis"Once again, if Moses wrote any of Genesis, he was certainly not its only author. And who were the other authors, apart from God and Moses?. Once again, if you truly want to understand scripture, including how it came to be written, when and by whom, you need to put aside the idol of your personal understanding and dare to hear what credible scholars have to say.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Apr 1, 2004 12:07:20 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "Jesus spoke of the days of Noe (Noah) as though he were a real flesh and blood guy. If Jesus said he was a literal figure - wouldn't that be proof enough?"Jesus didn't specify that Noah was a historical figure, His words can also be interpreted as reference to a character in a well-known story, such as I were to compare one who is lost to Odysseus on his voyage. genesda - "What is the point of quoting the scriptures to someone who doesn't believe they're God's truth? It seems like a waste of time."I do believe Scripture to be God's truth, and have reaffirmed that belief more frequently than virtually anybody on this board. I defy you to point out even one instance where I claimed Scripture to be otherwise. "You've shown nothing here except that you accept man's word and what he calls 'evidence' over God's truth."Not evidence over God's Truth, but evidence of God's Truth, evidence of how He created. Again, unless God is lying to us, the truth that He has revealed through His Creation cannot be inconsistent with the truth that He has revealed through His Word. You can try to dodge it all you want, but you cannot avoid this simple point. "Maybe you evolved from an ape"I don't believe that to be the case at all. However, I do recognize that all humans are descended from a common ancestor that we share with modern apes. "but I accept the truth of God when He said 'man was formed of the dust of the ground."I accept that truth as well, I just recognize that it cannot be literal truth unless God is lying to us. "You cannot be a Christian, no matter how much you claim to be one."Thankfully, my salvation does not hinge on your opinion of my faith. "You reject the plain, spelled out truth of the scriptures."I do no such thing. I believe every chapter and verse of Scripture to be true, but recognize that that truth is not always literal. In the case of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11, the physical evidence of God's Creation clearly demonstrates that literal interpretations of those pkmtyolpages cannot remain true. Your insistence that a literal interpretation of those pkmtyolpages is correct mandates that you wholly deny the existence of the physical evidence, but reality does not cease to exist just because you refuse to acknowledge it. I2AM4GOD - "Believing God's written Word necessitates that we accept the fact that the Genesis account of how He created Adam and Eve is correct."Believing in God's Word necessitates that we accept that the account of His Creation of our species is true, but does not necessitate that we accept it as literally true. Once again, you are basing your position on your complete failure to understand the capacity of figurative speech to convey truth. "The problem is that your 'evidence' has been deliberately misinterpreted to fit the theory of evolution."Your claim carries no weight for two reasons. First off, you have no evidence to demonstrate that such deliberate misinterpretation has occurred. Without that evidence, your accusation is meaningless. Secondly, a literal interpretation of the events of Gen. 1-11 was falsified years before Darwin and Wallace ever published their papers by geologists, many of whom were Christians themselves! ”I wholly disagree with your highly presumptuous position [that direct observation of God’s Creation of the Earth is not necessary to determine how He created].”Disagree with it all you want, but the fact remains that it is not necessary to directly witness an event in order to determine that it occurred. ”And who were the other authors, apart from God and Moses?”While the identities of the authors of Genesis are not known, the language of the book demonstrates the existence of at least two authors, commonly known as the “J,” or Yahwist source, and the “P,” or priestly source. ”How can you truly claim to believe in the God of the Christian faith when you disbelieve His version of the account of Creation?”The problem here lies in your failure to understand my position. I do not disbelieve God’s account of Creation, but only your interpretation of that account. Therefore, there is no basis for questioning my Christian belief. As do I. The flaw in the question is that it assumes that the first humans actually were formed “out of the dust of the Earth” when the physical evidence clearly demonstrates that this was not the case. I am fully ready to be corrected by what God says, I simply refuse to be “corrected” by what you have to say, since your claims are wholly contradicted by the physical evidence. ”We don't care about you questioning our credibility.”You should, if you hope to convince anybody that you are correct. ”We do care about the fact that you question our Lord's credibility.”Would you care to show even a single post where I have done so? Of course you wouldn’t, because there is no such post in existence. ”‘Belief in the absence of evidence is faith, but belief in the absence of evidence is delusion’.
So in other words you are saying that ‘faith = delusion’.”While those were the words I typed, they were typed in error. The statement should read “Belief in the absence of evidence is faith, but belief in spite of the evidence is delusion. A clarification has been added at the end of that post. Thank you for pointing out my misstatement. Regarding your subsequent comments, they are inapplicable since they were made in response to that misstatement. ”We cannot accurately measure the millions of years of the past natural history of our planet.”Actually, scientists have been doing just that for decades using radiometric dating techniques. As always, your claims are contradicted by the physical evidence. ”It seems mighty strange to me that you can't count on the support of the majority of Christians if you really know what you are talking about.”Not the majority of Christians, but the majority of posters to these threads. You are drawing an inappropriate inference from the data. Now, regarding that lack of support, it’s neither strange nor relevant, since those individuals who dispute my claims do so without having a single shred of evidence to support their position. It is one thing to claim somebody to be wrong as my opponents have, but quite another to actually demonstrate them to be wrong with evidence, something my opponents have utterly failed to do. --Big Daddy Traf Bad like Jim Jones, I’ll take you out with one punch
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 1, 2004 20:17:41 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "Jesus spoke of the days of Noe (Noah) as though he were a real flesh and blood guy. If Jesus said he was a literal figure - wouldn't that be proof enough?"Jesus didn't specify that Noah was a historical figure, His words can also be interpreted as reference to a character in a well-known story, such as I were to compare one who is lost to Odysseus on his voyage. --Big Daddy Traf Bad like Jim Jones, I’ll take you out with one punch So may I then take it that you are comparing the Bible, the Word of God to a fictional mythology? And that Jesus would someone permit His followers to continue on in their "delusion?" What of Jude, the Lord's brother who quoted Enoch: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude 14-15). In this verse I note that not only does Jude believe that Enoch was a literal figure - but that he also considered Adam to be a literal person as well, as he shows the lineage of Enoch. Aren't you ever even a little worried that you might be included in this list - considering your hard speeches against God's Word? Are you speaking of the Jim Jones from Guyana that led 900-some people to commit suicide by drinking poisoned grape juice? And those that would not do it, he had shot? Is that the Jim Jones you are comparing yourself too?
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Apr 1, 2004 23:32:57 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "So may I then take it that you are comparing the Bible, the Word of God to a fictional mythology?"No, I am comparing reference to one character in a well known story to reference to another character in another well known story. "And that Jesus would someone permit His followers to continue on in their 'delusion?'"Jesus' reference to Noah did not contribute to any delusion among His audience, as His teachings were in no way inconsistent with the truth of God's Word or the truth of His Creation when that reference is interpreted as figurative. "What of Jude, the Lord's brother who quoted Enoch"As I said earlier, a figurative interpretation of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 can remain true regardless of whether or not the figures in those pkmtyolpages were historical. "Aren't you ever even a little worried that you might be included in this list - considering your hard speeches against God's Word?"Not at all, as I have never made any "hard speeches against God's Word." Have you even been reading my posts? I have only spoken against a literal interpretation of certain pkmtyolpages of God's Word, and more than that, I have thoroughly demonstrated that interpretation to be false. "Is that the Jim Jones you are comparing yourself too?"About time somebody gets the joke. Bloodhound Gang has got some great lyrics --Traf E. Traf
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 1, 2004 23:40:02 GMT -5
Hey Traffic! Just wanted to let you know, regardless of the friendly arguments going on , please do continue with the fascinating posts- I am reading them! ;D Thanks! Lisa
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Apr 1, 2004 23:44:08 GMT -5
Lisa Loves Jesus - "Just wanted to let you know, regardless of the friendly arguments going on , please do continue with the fascinating posts- I am reading them!"Glad to see it If you've got any questions, I'm always happy to answer them. --TDv2.0
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 1, 2004 23:54:35 GMT -5
Lisa Loves Jesus - "Just wanted to let you know, regardless of the friendly arguments going on , please do continue with the fascinating posts- I am reading them!"Glad to see it If you've got any questions, I'm always happy to answer them. --TDv2.0 Yes! Thanks! As I said before, this is interesting stuff- my belief is that a lot of biblical info was not to be taken literally, so I agree.
|
|
|
Post by k8reader on Apr 2, 2004 7:34:52 GMT -5
k8reader - Same question, do you have anything relevant to the discussion to contribute? Relevant? I think so. What if your posts supporting evolutionary theory were to cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble?
|
|