 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | daviddale3 wrote: | Have you ever read what Peter, Paul, Matt. Jude, John, etc..have written? Here are some things for you to consider:
1) Matt. 24:37-39; Jesus believed that the flood killed every person not on the ark.What else could he have meant when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah.
2) II Peter 3; the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah' flood A partial judgment in Noah's day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.
3)I Timothy 2:13; in which Paul (which I believe you a a student) states that Adam was the first formed, then Eve. This goes against scientific naturalism.
4) Matt. 19:1-6; Jesus in his discourse the Pharisees on divorce quotes Genesis 1:27 & 2:24. Did Jesus tell a fib? I do not think so.
5) I Peter 3:18_21; Exodus 20:11; Psalm 104:5-9; Job 38 & 39; I Cor. 11:7-12; Mark 10:6-8
6) I Cor. 15:45; Jesus was called the last Adam by Paul. If the first Adam is only a myth, then the last is also a myth. |
In light of David's cited passages demonstrating the veracity of a literal Gen 1-11 account, the complete absence of Craig's or Jacinth's citations of scripture, I would say one interpretation is more Biblically palatable than the other.
Unless of course, there passages that I am unaware of??? |
First of all, you left out the by far most important New Testament passage that is commonly but mistakenly put forth to prove that the New Testament writers believed in a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11. That passage is found in the fifth chapter of Romans:
12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21. so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It is upon this passage in Romans that the doctrine of original sin is taught.
Does this passage prove that Paul believed in a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11? No, of course not. But you ask, “Why not?” Rather than post the answer, I am going to ask you to read just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of Romans, and just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of each of the books of the New Testament that you referenced above. After you have read these commentaries, fairly and objectively summarize for us the arguments that they present that counter your interpretation and then provide for the readers of this thread a rebuttal of those arguments. This is asking very little of you, for I have for I have read many hundreds of works that support your interpretation, and I can refute every one of their arguments.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | I know for an absolute fact that Genesis 1-11 is not an accurate, literal account of historic events and I would stake my life and salvation on that fact without a second thought. I am the only one in this thread who has posted any solid evidence to support my interpretation of Genesis 1-11, and the Scriptural evidence for my interpretation is found primarily in that that text itself. |
Baloney... you have provided neither evidence nor have to even attempted to delineate a cogent interpretation from the text... the only thing you have done, thus far... is tell those who disagree with you that they are wrong and you are right... because 'un-cited academics' say so. Your method of debate is juvenile and absurd.
| Quote: | | There is absolutely nothing in the text of Genesis 6-8 that even remotely suggests that it is anything but an epic tale and the very wording and structure of it supports the interpretation that it is an epic tale. |
OK... please tell us how this is so. Because you said so? Sorry... that is not how this process works.
| Quote: | | The supposed evidence that has been posted in this thread that Jesus and the New Testament writers believed in a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11 is based exclusively upon a very naïve and unlearned understanding of the texts in which they are found. I have already explained this in earlier posts in this thread. |
No... no Sir you haven't. You have asserted as much, but never once provided an explanation for said 'opinion'. You have been asked repeatedly to provide associated scripture with a consistent exegesis on your interpretation. You have provided neither. You have continually appealed to authority (which you refuse to provide any citation of) and have tried to intimidate others into accepting your opinion by appealing to this unnamed/cited/referenced authority.
| Quote: | | We all have the choice to believe uneducated laypersons who know virtually nothing at all or to believe tens of thousands of scholars internationally known for their contribution to the understanding and interpretation of Biblical literature. And some of us have been blessed by God with an outstanding education ourselves. |
I think I asked you last night to provide a definition of what an 'educated person' is... are you going to get around to that? Or, is this going to follow the pattern of obfuscation?
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith
Last edited by Trinity1 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Finally... scripture to demonstrate your interpretation...
| Craig2uguys wrote: | First of all, you left out the by far most important New Testament passage that is commonly but mistakenly put forth to prove that the New Testament writers believed in a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11. That passage is found in the fifth chapter of Romans:
12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and [b]death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. |
Craig... if death did not enter into the world until Adam sinned, how can we have evolution (which requires all kinds of death, suffering, sin). You can believe in evolution, however, when you put death before sin, you have directly contradicted scripture. How does this work? Please don't try to tell us that this is a metaphor unless of course you are going to support it with scripture.
| Quote: | | It is upon this passage in Romans that the doctrine of original sin is taught. |
and I agree completely...
| Quote: | | Does this passage prove that Paul believed in a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11? No, of course not. But you ask, “Why not?” |
Huh? What does it prove then? That he believed in evolution? That he believed that the earth was created millions and billions of years ago? The passage actually suggests (and I'll admit not conclusively) that Paul believed that through Adam's sin... then death entered into the world. If Adam brought death into the world... what about the human beings that existed prior to Adam?
| Quote: | | Rather than post the answer, I am going to ask you to read just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of Romans, and just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of each of the books of the New Testament that you referenced above. After you have read these commentaries, fairly and objectively summarize for us the arguments that they present that counter your interpretation and then provide for the readers of this thread a rebuttal of those arguments. This is asking very little of you, for I have for I have read many hundreds of works that support your interpretation, and I can refute every one of their arguments. |
Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment. If you believe there are legitimate commentaries that satisfy your interpretation... cite. I am not, however, going to pour through ill-defined commentaries that you could just as easily post here on this board.
You are simply playing sophomoric games in hopes of escaping the 'call on your bluff'. You want to insist my interpretation is incorrect, it therefore becomes incumbent upon YOU... not me (since I have provided supporting scripture for my interpretation and consistent exegesis) to support your position. Not with vague or ambiguous text, but with direct and consistent scripture...
You have not, will not, and I earnestly believe through experience (when confronting those like you) that you can not do this.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment. |
Since you have studied “this issue” at the “Graduate Level” (these words should not be capitalized) you know that the phrase “portend to believe” is unintelligible gibberish (one cannot ‘portend’ to believe anything—you are using a wrong word) and you know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact, as do other well-educated persons, that Gen. 6-8 is not a factually accurate historical narrative and that such a flood has not occurred. Therefore, I must ask why you are arguing for that which you know for certain is not true and is not academically defensible? And what is all the nonsense of asking me to post Scriptures from the Bible that discuss the various genres of literature found in various places in the Bible?
The mere fact that the Bible does not say that Pinus longaeva grows in the White Mountains of California at elevations between 10,000 and 11,000 feet does not mean that this tree does not grow there, and to argue that it does not because the Bible does not say that it does makes no more sense than arguing that Genesis 6-8 is not an example of early Hebrew epic literature rather than a factually accurate historical narrative because the Bible does not say that it is.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 146
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment. |
Since you have studied “this issue” at the “Graduate Level” (these words should not be capitalized) you know that the phrase “portend to believe” is unintelligible gibberish (one cannot ‘portend’ to believe anything—you are using a wrong word) and you know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact, as do other well-educated persons, that Gen. 6-8 is not a factually accurate historical narrative and that such a flood has not occurred. Therefore, I must ask why you are arguing for that which you know for certain is not true and is not academically defensible? And what is all the nonsense of asking me to post Scriptures from the Bible that discuss the various genres of literature found in various places in the Bible?
The mere fact that the Bible does not say that Pinus longaeva grows in the White Mountains of California at elevations between 10,000 and 11,000 feet does not mean that this tree does not grow there, and to argue that it does not because the Bible does not say that it does makes no more sense than arguing that Genesis 6-8 is not an example of early Hebrew epic literature rather than a factually accurate historical narrative because the Bible does not say that it is. |
Again, you seem to miss the point of what Tinity1 was getting at. As I see it, his response was to you previous post that said this:
| Quote: | Quote:
Rather than post the answer, I am going to ask you to read just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of Romans, and just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of each of the books of the New Testament that you referenced above. After you have read these commentaries, fairly and objectively summarize for us the arguments that they present that counter your interpretation and then provide for the readers of this thread a rebuttal of those arguments. This is asking very little of you, for I have for I have read many hundreds of works that support your interpretation, and I can refute every one of their arguments.
Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment. If you believe there are legitimate commentaries that satisfy your interpretation... cite. I am not, however, going to pour through ill-defined commentaries that you could just as easily post here on this board.
You are simply playing sophomoric games in hopes of escaping the 'call on your bluff'. You want to insist my interpretation is incorrect, it therefore becomes incumbent upon YOU... not me (since I have provided supporting scripture for my interpretation and consistent exegesis) to support your position. Not with vague or ambiguous text, but with direct and consistent scripture...
You have not, will not, and I earnestly believe through experience (when confronting those like you) that you can not do this. |
If you will notice, Trinity1 was responding to your post that he should do your leg work for you and go to the 5 commentaries that you wish for him to investigate. (By the way, you gave no indication as to which ones to look into.) He was just pointing out that this was not his burden but yours.
As he posted before,
| Quote: | It is a rhetorical question... the reason why no one ever provides scripture to demonstrate the veracity of their interpretation of Gen 1-11 is because... yep... there is none. It is their interpretation that is divisive, ignorant, and has nothing to do with scripture but their own opinions... not the YECs.
Now, if they want to debate the science behind thier interpretation... fine... but it is not scriptural in any way shape or form. If it is, it is incumbant upon them to demonstrate otherwise how. |
If you wish to debate the science behind your interpretation, fine, we can. Problem is this, that is not the debate at hand. The debate at hand is you giving scriptual backing for your argument. Which again you have not done. Instead, you have jumped back to something else, which indicates that you have no evidence from scripture for your stance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | Since you have studied “this issue” at the “Graduate Level” (these words should not be capitalized) you know that the phrase “portend to believe” is unintelligible gibberish (one cannot ‘portend’ to believe anything—you are using a wrong word) |
Portend: too indicate in advance; to foreshadow or presage, as an omen does: The street incident may portend a general uprising.
My advice... and of course you are getting what you paid for here... is before you make an idiot out of yourself when attempting to correct another's grammar or usage of said grammar... make sure you know what you are talking about... -k-?
| Quote: | | and you know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact, as do other well-educated persons, that Gen. 6-8 is not a factually accurate historical narrative and that such a flood has not occurred. |
Well... you are right, I don't know for certain that a world wide flood ever occurred. I wasn't there. Neither were you. Neither were the scientists you are placing your faith in either. I believe the Bible is a correct account of history. I believe that the flood in said Bible is correct.
Question, if a world wide flood did occur, what would you expect find?
Also, I still haven't seen the math on the ark and how it was impossible to carry all of the animals.
Also Also... I still haven't seen your calculations for displacement.
Also Also Also.... I still haven't seen you backing up your assertion that there is not enough water on the eafrth to cover it.
Just a friendly reminder of you making assertions without EVER backing them up with citations of any type... unless of course 'because you say so' is a citation. 
| Quote: | | And what is all the nonsense of asking me to post Scriptures from the Bible that discuss the various genres of literature found in various places in the Bible? |
This 'non-sense' that I am asking for is how you support an interpretation of scripture that contradicts God in Exodus 20:11. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, all I am asking for is for you to extend the same courtesy I provided you and explain why/how.
| Quote: | | The mere fact that the Bible does not say that Pinus longaeva grows in the White Mountains of California at elevations between 10,000 and 11,000 feet does not mean that this tree does not grow there, and to argue that it does not because the Bible does not say that it does makes no more sense than arguing that Genesis 6-8 is not an example of early Hebrew epic literature rather than a factually accurate historical narrative because the Bible does not say that it is. |
It doesn't huh? Care to explain why then all of those generations of begating are in there then? Sir, the more you try to argue this issue, the more and more I am starting to believe you actually have no idea what you are talking about.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Craig2uguys wrote: | | Since you have studied “this issue” at the “Graduate Level” (these words should not be capitalized) you know that the phrase “portend to believe” is unintelligible gibberish (one cannot ‘portend’ to believe anything—you are using a wrong word) |
Portend: too indicate in advance; to foreshadow or presage, as an omen does: The street incident may portend a general uprising.
My advice... and of course you are getting what you paid for here... is before you make an idiot out of yourself when attempting to correct another's grammar or usage of said grammar... make sure you know what you are talking about... -k-? |
The English word ‘portend’ comes to us from the compound Latin word portendere (por = forward; tendere = stretch) and is first found in 15th century English language documents. It was first used to express in English the concepts of giving an omen or a sign of something anticipated, especially a warning. In more recent literature it is also used to express in English the concepts of to ‘indicate’ or ‘signify’ or ‘suggest’ with a reference to the future. The American Heritage Dictionary gives us an excellent example of this more recent usage: “economic declines that portend trouble.” Compare the English cognate noun ‘portent.’
Therefore the definition that you gave (I most certainly hope that these are your own words and that you did not cut them from another man’s work and paste them into your post without giving credit to the source and thus having committed the grievous intellectual crime of plagiarism) is a good definition and a definition that indisputably shows that you used the word ‘portend’ incorrectly in your earlier post when you wrote,
“Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment.”
The data that you posted yourself regarding the word ‘portend’ indisputably and incontrovertibly shows that you used the word incorrectly and yet you still deny that you used it incorrectly. Therefore, since you refuse to believe even your own data, no amount of data that I might post regarding Gen. 1-11 is at all likely to help you to learn the truth; hence discussing the subject with you is a futile waste of time.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | | Craig2uguys wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment. |
Since you have studied “this issue” at the “Graduate Level” (these words should not be capitalized) you know that the phrase “portend to believe” is unintelligible gibberish (one cannot ‘portend’ to believe anything—you are using a wrong word) and you know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact, as do other well-educated persons, that Gen. 6-8 is not a factually accurate historical narrative and that such a flood has not occurred. Therefore, I must ask why you are arguing for that which you know for certain is not true and is not academically defensible? And what is all the nonsense of asking me to post Scriptures from the Bible that discuss the various genres of literature found in various places in the Bible?
The mere fact that the Bible does not say that Pinus longaeva grows in the White Mountains of California at elevations between 10,000 and 11,000 feet does not mean that this tree does not grow there, and to argue that it does not because the Bible does not say that it does makes no more sense than arguing that Genesis 6-8 is not an example of early Hebrew epic literature rather than a factually accurate historical narrative because the Bible does not say that it is. |
Again, you seem to miss the point of what Tinity1 was getting at. As I see it, his response was to you previous post that said this:
| Quote: | Quote:
Rather than post the answer, I am going to ask you to read just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of Romans, and just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of each of the books of the New Testament that you referenced above. After you have read these commentaries, fairly and objectively summarize for us the arguments that they present that counter your interpretation and then provide for the readers of this thread a rebuttal of those arguments. This is asking very little of you, for I have for I have read many hundreds of works that support your interpretation, and I can refute every one of their arguments.
Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment. If you believe there are legitimate commentaries that satisfy your interpretation... cite. I am not, however, going to pour through ill-defined commentaries that you could just as easily post here on this board.
You are simply playing sophomoric games in hopes of escaping the 'call on your bluff'. You want to insist my interpretation is incorrect, it therefore becomes incumbent upon YOU... not me (since I have provided supporting scripture for my interpretation and consistent exegesis) to support your position. Not with vague or ambiguous text, but with direct and consistent scripture...
You have not, will not, and I earnestly believe through experience (when confronting those like you) that you can not do this. |
If you will notice, Trinity1 was responding to your post that he should do your leg work for you and go to the 5 commentaries that you wish for him to investigate. (By the way, you gave no indication as to which ones to look into.) He was just pointing out that this was not his burden but yours.
As he posted before,
| Quote: | It is a rhetorical question... the reason why no one ever provides scripture to demonstrate the veracity of their interpretation of Gen 1-11 is because... yep... there is none. It is their interpretation that is divisive, ignorant, and has nothing to do with scripture but their own opinions... not the YECs.
Now, if they want to debate the science behind thier interpretation... fine... but it is not scriptural in any way shape or form. If it is, it is incumbant upon them to demonstrate otherwise how. |
If you wish to debate the science behind your interpretation, fine, we can. Problem is this, that is not the debate at hand. The debate at hand is you giving scriptual backing for your argument. Which again you have not done. Instead, you have jumped back to something else, which indicates that you have no evidence from scripture for your stance. |
In order for any interpretation of any part of the Bible to be an accurate interpretation it MUST be in harmony with all known facts, including facts from history and science. The theory of evolution is a theory and not an absolute fact, but it is based upon absolute facts that are not disputed today by any reasonably competent historian or scientist. The story of Noah’s Ark in Gen. 6-8 cannot be an accurate, literal account of historic events because we know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that such a flood did not occur and that what is portrayed as happening aboard Noah’s Ark could not possibly have occurred. This leaves us with basically two possibilities:
1. Gen. 6-8 is mere fiction.
2. Gen. 6-8 are epic tales that God, in His infinite wisdom, placed in the Old Testament canon to teach us, not history or science, but spiritual truths about Himself and about us.
Radical Christian fundamentalists who militantly proclaim that Gen. 7-8 is either an accurate, literal account of historic events or a lie are persuading hundreds of thousands of young people every year that the Bible is a work of fiction. Young people need to be told the truth—the gospel message with out the baggage. If they inquire about the baggage, they need to be told the truth that the very large majority of Old and New Testament scholars believe that Gen. 1-11 is a collection of epic tales that God, in His infinite wisdom, placed in the Old Testament canon to teach us, not history or science, but spiritual truths about Himself and about us. And that, therefore, there is no conflict between what the Bible teaches and what we have learned from history and science.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 146
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig2uguys;
| Quote: | | The theory of evolution is a theory and not an absolute fact, but it is based upon absolute facts that are not disputed today by any reasonably competent historian or scientist. |
Seems strange that you would say this, since most of the absolutes you call facts have been and always will be in dispute.
Pierre-Paul Grasse;
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding; a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, approprialte events. Thus, miracles would become the rule; events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur...There is no law against day-dreaming, but science must not indulge in it." Evolution of living organisms 1977
How about others such as these;
Sir Ernest Chain
D.H. Erwin
J.W. Valentine
Lynn Marqulis
Dorion Sagan
E.J. Ambrose
Stephen Jay Gould
These are just a few who question the absolute fact of Darwinian evolution. Specifically that of genetic mutation leading to the aquasition of new information.
I could list this page with others who question the TOE from different angles and fields. In fact, almost all of the so called 'absolute facts' seem to be in question.
But this is not the main focus of this debate. Shall we remind you that you need to provide some sort of scripture to support your claim. From scripture, how is it that you have come up with your interpretation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | | Craig2uguys wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment. |
Since you have studied “this issue” at the “Graduate Level” (these words should not be capitalized) you know that the phrase “portend to believe” is unintelligible gibberish (one cannot ‘portend’ to believe anything—you are using a wrong word) and you know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact, as do other well-educated persons, that Gen. 6-8 is not a factually accurate historical narrative and that such a flood has not occurred. Therefore, I must ask why you are arguing for that which you know for certain is not true and is not academically defensible? And what is all the nonsense of asking me to post Scriptures from the Bible that discuss the various genres of literature found in various places in the Bible?
The mere fact that the Bible does not say that Pinus longaeva grows in the White Mountains of California at elevations between 10,000 and 11,000 feet does not mean that this tree does not grow there, and to argue that it does not because the Bible does not say that it does makes no more sense than arguing that Genesis 6-8 is not an example of early Hebrew epic literature rather than a factually accurate historical narrative because the Bible does not say that it is. |
Again, you seem to miss the point of what Tinity1 was getting at. As I see it, his response was to you previous post that said this:
| Quote: | Quote:
Rather than post the answer, I am going to ask you to read just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of Romans, and just five (5) academic commentaries on the Greek text of each of the books of the New Testament that you referenced above. After you have read these commentaries, fairly and objectively summarize for us the arguments that they present that counter your interpretation and then provide for the readers of this thread a rebuttal of those arguments. This is asking very little of you, for I have for I have read many hundreds of works that support your interpretation, and I can refute every one of their arguments.
Look gunfighter, I have studied this issue at the Graduate Level... please don't portend to believe that I am going to jump through hoops to fulfill some unspecified 'homework' assignment. If you believe there are legitimate commentaries that satisfy your interpretation... cite. I am not, however, going to pour through ill-defined commentaries that you could just as easily post here on this board.
You are simply playing sophomoric games in hopes of escaping the 'call on your bluff'. You want to insist my interpretation is incorrect, it therefore becomes incumbent upon YOU... not me (since I have provided supporting scripture for my interpretation and consistent exegesis) to support your position. Not with vague or ambiguous text, but with direct and consistent scripture...
You have not, will not, and I earnestly believe through experience (when confronting those like you) that you can not do this. |
If you will notice, Trinity1 was responding to your post that he should do your leg work for you and go to the 5 commentaries that you wish for him to investigate. (By the way, you gave no indication as to which ones to look into.) He was just pointing out that this was not his burden but yours.
As he posted before,
| Quote: | It is a rhetorical question... the reason why no one ever provides scripture to demonstrate the veracity of their interpretation of Gen 1-11 is because... yep... there is none. It is their interpretation that is divisive, ignorant, and has nothing to do with scripture but their own opinions... not the YECs.
Now, if they want to debate the science behind thier interpretation... fine... but it is not scriptural in any way shape or form. If it is, it is incumbant upon them to demonstrate otherwise how. |
If you wish to debate the science behind your interpretation, fine, we can. Problem is this, that is not the debate at hand. The debate at hand is you giving scriptual backing for your argument. Which again you have not done. Instead, you have jumped back to something else, which indicates that you have no evidence from scripture for your stance. |
I did not miss his point but rather I chose not to address it because it did not make any sense. It would make very little difference which five commentaries on the Greek text of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans Trinty1 chose to read because he is not likely to find any that agree with his position that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is the inerrant word of God and that Paul believed Gen. 1-11 to be an accurate, literal account of historic events. I have done my homework, Trinity1 obviously has not. It is just as futile to attempt to discuss Gen. 1-11 and citations or references to it in the New Testament with a man who has obviously not studied either the Hebrew text of the Old Testament or the Greek text of the New Testament or the biological or geological sciences as it would be to discuss contemporary theoretical physics with a one-year-old child.
I have debated these topics for many years and I have yet to encounter even one individual with a good knowledge of Hebrew and Greek as well as the biological sciences who believes Gen. 1-11 to be an accurate, literal account of historic events. Indeed, the more knowledge a man has of Hebrew and Greek and the biological sciences, the more strongly he is inclined to believe that Gen. 1-11 cannot be an accurate, literal account of historic events. Radical Christian fundamentalists know this all too well and their response has been to either greatly exaggerate the education and academic appointments of those who agree with them or to equate knowledge with lies from the devil.
Radical Christian fundamentalists are today the greatest threat to the credibility of the gospel message. The truth that Jesus was and is the Son of God and that He died on the cross to atone for our sins and that He rose from the dead that we, too, might walk in new of life is difficult enough for many to believe without that truth being cloaked in easily disproved nonsense that the earth is merely thousands of years old and that the earth was entirely covered with water about 4,350 years ago and that every kind of animal living on the earth today, not to mention the many thousands of kinds of animals that have become extinct during the past 4,350 years, has descended from the few thousand species of animals that could have been kept alive on an ark.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | Craig2uguys;
| Quote: | | The theory of evolution is a theory and not an absolute fact, but it is based upon absolute facts that are not disputed today by any reasonably competent historian or scientist. |
Seems strange that you would say this, since most of the absolutes you call facts have been and always will be in dispute.
Pierre-Paul Grasse;
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding; a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, approprialte events. Thus, miracles would become the rule; events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur...There is no law against day-dreaming, but science must not indulge in it." Evolution of living organisms 1977
How about others such as these;
Sir Ernest Chain
D.H. Erwin
J.W. Valentine
Lynn Marqulis
Dorion Sagan
E.J. Ambrose
Stephen Jay Gould
These are just a few who question the absolute fact of Darwinian evolution. Specifically that of genetic mutation leading to the aquasition of new information.
I could list this page with others who question the TOE from different angles and fields. In fact, almost all of the so called 'absolute facts' seem to be in question.
But this is not the main focus of this debate. Shall we remind you that you need to provide some sort of scripture to support your claim. From scripture, how is it that you have come up with your interpretation. |
Pierre-Paul Grasse believed in a theory of evolution that contradicted some of the tenets of what is commonly known as ‘Darwinian evolution’ but he did believe in and advocate for the theory of evolution in the broader sense. And he was not alone in his dissent from Darwinian evolution; several scientists in the former Soviet Union also held to some variations to main-stream evolutionary thought. However, for every scientist in recent years who has dissented from Darwinian evolution, there have been more than 10,000 who have agreed with Darwinian evolution.
I did not, however, write that any theory of evolution was an absolute fact; I wrote,
“The theory of evolution is a theory and not an absolute fact, but it is based upon absolute facts that are not disputed today by any reasonably competent historian or scientist.”
Radical Christian fundamentalists who insist that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate, literal account of historic events base that notion exclusively upon an exceptionally poor knowledge of both the Old and New Testaments in their original languages, a nearly total lack of knowledge of early Hebrew literature, and a total lack of knowledge of other ancient oriental literature. Hence they interpret Genesis 1-11 entirely out of the context of the large body of literature of which it is a part and consequently arrive at interpretations that are ludicrous. Therefore, even if the biological and geological sciences did not contradict their interpretation, the chances of their interpretation even remotely approaching the truth is miniscule. The biological and geological sciences do, however, contradict their interpretation; indeed, they not only contradict it—they absolutely disprove it.
Most certainly for anyone to base their interpretation of Gen. 1-11 upon a very few bits of anomalous data when the great preponderance of the data (indeed, hundreds of millions of bits of data) absolutely and incontrovertibly proves their interpretation to be not only radically wrong but absurdly ridiculous is foolishness to the ultimate extreme. And to argue that hundreds of millions of bits of data that absolutely and incontrovertibly prove their interpretation to be radically wrong should not be considered because they are from science rather than from an uneducated layman’s grasp of a 400 year old Anglican translation of the Bible is comparable to arguing that the moon is inhabited by people dressed in formal wear just because Bingham Young claimed to have a vision from God to that effect when hundreds of millions of bits of data absolutely and incontrovertibly prove that argument to be not only radically wrong but absurdly ridiculous.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | Craig2uguys;
| Quote: | | The theory of evolution is a theory and not an absolute fact, but it is based upon absolute facts that are not disputed today by any reasonably competent historian or scientist. |
Seems strange that you would say this, since most of the absolutes you call facts have been and always will be in dispute.
Pierre-Paul Grasse;
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding; a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, approprialte events. Thus, miracles would become the rule; events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur...There is no law against day-dreaming, but science must not indulge in it." Evolution of living organisms 1977
How about others such as these;
Sir Ernest Chain
D.H. Erwin
J.W. Valentine
Lynn Marqulis
Dorion Sagan
E.J. Ambrose
Stephen Jay Gould
These are just a few who question the absolute fact of Darwinian evolution. Specifically that of genetic mutation leading to the aquasition of new information.
I could list this page with others who question the TOE from different angles and fields. In fact, almost all of the so called 'absolute facts' seem to be in question.
But this is not the main focus of this debate. Shall we remind you that you need to provide some sort of scripture to support your claim. From scripture, how is it that you have come up with your interpretation. |
Perhaps it has escaped the attention of some who are participating in this debate that I am not arguing for Darwinian evolution or even for evolution in the broader sense—I am simply arguing that Gen. 1-11 is not an accurate, literal account of historic events. That much is an absolute fact just as certain that a water molecule (H20) is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. And I have not simply made this claim, as has been the approach of my opponents, but I have posted, in support of my claim, factual information that no one can refute.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig,
Have you chosen to completely ignore the topic of this discussion? Your last three posts have nothing to do with it....
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | Craig,
Have you chosen to completely ignore the topic of this discussion? Your last three posts have nothing to do with it.... |
The opening post of this thread:
| Quote: | | I am a Geologist by profession, and I have long taken interest in the debate over the age of the Earth. Would any YEC's like to present one argument to begin with for why the Earth is young? |
My most recent post:
| Quote: | | Perhaps it has escaped the attention of some who are participating in this debate that I am not arguing for Darwinian evolution or even for evolution in the broader sense—I am simply arguing that Gen. 1-11 is not an accurate, literal account of historic events. That much is an absolute fact just as certain that a water molecule (H20) is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. And I have not simply made this claim, as has been the approach of my opponents, but I have posted, in support of my claim, factual information that no one can refute. |
Instead of derailing the thread, as some have attempted to do, I have tenaciously stuck to the subject of the thread by refuting the notion still held in the 21st century by some radical Christian fundamentalists that the earth is merely thousands of years old because an archaic and naïve interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament suggests such a notion. This refutation has consistently been along two lines of thought:
1. Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament, when carefully read in the broad context of early Hebrew literature other ancient oriental literature, are obviously not a series of accurate, historical narratives to be taken literally, but rather a series of epic tales full of spiritual truths about God, His creation, and man. That this is a true and established fact is supported by the absolute fact that the very large majority of Old and New Testament scholars hold to this view, including today even those who hold to a very conservative interpretation of the Bible.
2. Genesis 6-8 is not an accurate, historical narrative as has been proven by ten of millions of facts that are so certain and so clear that 99.95% of all biologists and geologists who have earned at least a Ph.D. in one of those sciences from and accredited institution known for academic excellence in these sciences believe that the earth is at the minimum hundreds of millions of years old and the vast majority of these biologists and geologists believe that the earth is about 5 billion years old.
I have also posted that this is a very important issue because a number of very militant radical Christian fundamentalists are today, by aggressively teaching young earth creationism, making a mockery of the principles of Biblical interpretation and the fundamental principles of the biological and geological sciences with the consequence being that the credibility of the gospel message is being obliterated in the eyes of young people all over the earth resulting in their ultimate, eternal damnation to the fires of hell. Indeed, young earth creationism is today the greatest threat to the gospel message.
_________________
2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 146
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | Craig,
Have you chosen to completely ignore the topic of this discussion? Your last three posts have nothing to do with it.... |
The opening post of this thread:
| Quote: | | I am a Geologist by profession, and I have long taken interest in the debate over the age of the Earth. Would any YEC's like to present one argument to begin with for why the Earth is young? |
My most recent post:
| Quote: | | Perhaps it has escaped the attention of some who are participating in this debate that I am not arguing for Darwinian evolution or even for evolution in the broader sense—I am simply arguing that Gen. 1-11 is not an accurate, literal account of historic events. That much is an absolute fact just as certain that a water molecule (H20) is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. And I have not simply made this claim, as has been the approach of my opponents, but I have posted, in support of my claim, factual information that no one can refute. |
Instead of derailing the thread, as some have attempted to do, I have tenaciously stuck to the subject of the thread by refuting the notion still held in the 21st century by some radical Christian fundamentalists that the earth is merely thousands of years old because an archaic and naïve interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament suggests such a notion. This refutation has consistently been along two lines of thought:
1. Genesis 1-11 and the relative passages in the New Testament, when carefully read in the broad context of early Hebrew literature other ancient oriental literature, are obviously not a series of accurate, historical narratives to be taken literally, but rather a series of epic tales full of spiritual truths about God, His creation, and man. That this is a true and established fact is supported by the absolute fact that the very large majority of Old and New Testament scholars hold to this view, including today even those who hold to a very conservative interpretation of the Bible.
2. Genesis 6-8 is not an accurate, historical narrative as has been proven by ten of millions of facts that are so certain and so clear that 99.95% of all biologists and geologists who have earned at least a Ph.D. in one of those sciences from and accredited institution known for academic excellence in these sciences believe that the earth is at the minimum hundreds of millions of years old and the vast majority of these biologists and geologists believe that the earth is about 5 billion years old.
I have also posted that this is a very important issue because a number of very militant radical Christian fundamentalists are today, by aggressively teaching young earth creationism, making a mockery of the principles of Biblical interpretation and the fundamental principles of the biological and geological sciences with the consequence being that the credibility of the gospel message is being obliterated in the eyes of young people all over the earth resulting in their ultimate, eternal damnation to the fires of hell. Indeed, young earth creationism is today the greatest threat to the gospel message. |
Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? If you do, please tell us why, if you do not, please explain why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
