|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 19, 2021 17:57:51 GMT
Sure, it covers dinosaurs. It doesn't mean dinosaurs. When I go to the reptile centre at the zoo, I don't see dinosaurs. Logical fallacy: the undistributed middle. I drive an automobile. A garbage truck is an automobile. But...I don't drive a garbage truck. That makes the translation wrong. Horny toads are lizards. Lizards are reptiles. But translating it as "God created horny toads" would be a wrong translation...even though God created horny toads. How many angels can you make dance at the head of a needle? If you're gonna be overly rigid in analysis then there is nothing you can learn. God left naming all the creatures up to Adam and Eve and their descendants after them. Genesis does not list off all the individual kinds of creatures God made. God knew the more important message of Scripture would be lost if it would take a lifetime just to get through the Torah alone. Fact is, dinosaurs are reptiles. The "reptile terrae" refers to all reptiles, including dinosaurs. And again, in light of all other evidence for the coexistence of dino and man, I think "reptile terrae" is a safe interpretation. But if you are gonna be overly rigid about analysis in Genesis then you lost any chance of ever understanding it. Rigid analysis may be applied to certain situations like science. For example, did you or someone you know or someone you know of ever see the big Bang happen in real time? If not, then the Big Bang is an article of philosophy, not science. The events mentioned in Genesis have ancient witnesses but there are no witnesses to the wild claims of evolutionists. Its all made up. Nobody can possibly know all those things evolutionists claim to know. Its impossible. When studying ancient languages you cannot hold those languages down to a rigid English speaking standard. The word dinosaur did not even exist until 1841. Why would you fuss over the lack of that word in Genesis when "reptile terrae" covers dinosaurs just fine. I think you are being way too overly rigid. I am being fair minded to ancient text. I do that with all ancient texts I examine because I know I'm not reading modern English. So its not an indulgence in being vague and undefined, but more like knowing when to relax rigid analysis and introduce fairness. 1. Translating Hebrew into Latin is not helpful for an English commentary. 2. An appropriate interpretation follows the following steps: a) Discovering the meanings of words based on usages across time but paying special attention to usage at the time the text was finalized. What do the words mean? b) Understanding the use of the words, expressions, and idioms within the context of the text itself and the culture in which the text was written/finalized. What do the sentences mean? c) Distilling the meaning of the text as informed by word meanings and context. What does the text mean? d) Extrapolating the distilled meaning and appropriating it to today's culture. What does the text have to say to us today.
This, of course, is why you don't see the words "dinosaur," "evolution," or "Big Bang" in my commentary. It doesn't address those issues. They appear in yours. This is because you have imposed your agenda prior to step one. That's not just problematic. It is a distortion of the interpretive process and renders your interpretation...kind of useless. You're asking the questions prematurely because those are not the questions addressed by the text in question. 3. Your understanding of "how science works" is painfully and egregiously deficient. Science doesn't require somebody to "observe an event" (I wonder how that works with Genesis 1:1). The process of science is collection of data, forming a hypothesis, and making predictions to test said hypothesis. How would this work with a "past event" like the Big Bang? How can you test that? Well, for one, you create a model that predicts what you might find if that model were accurate. That's falsifiability--an essential part of the process. So here's how it works for the Big Bang: 1) Collect data--almost all stars and galaxies are moving away from us ("red shifted"). 2) Form a hypothesis: extrapolating backwards, it appears as if in the past all these stars and galaxies were in one place and have expanded from there. 3) Various models were introduced. One popular model suggested that if the model were accurate, we would be able to measure leftover "background radiation" from every direction...but not uniform radiation--radiation with a particular gradation. It was impossible to measure this from within the atmosphere because interference would render the subtle measurements impossible. But the COBE satellite was launched in 1989 to measure this Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. If it's not there, or too uniform, the model is falsified. But it was there! As predicted! So now there is corroboration on the model without the requirement of "somebody observing the Big Bang." That doesn't guarantee that the Big Bang happened. But it creates another problem--if the model is false, how else do we account for receding stars and galaxies and also the measured Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that was predicted by the model? None of this information is esoteric or hard to find. 4. You claim to have studied the languages (Hebrew, Greek, and for some reason, Latin) for 18 years. And yet you have not once mentioned the specific forms of Hebrew words (e.g., Niphal or Qal forms). The LXX is valuable as a secondary source for how the text might have been understood hundreds of years subsequent to the "original Hebrew texts" before they were collected, compiled, and edited (probably during the Babylonian Exile). And yet, although you offer Greek words and their basic meanings, you have yet to specify word genders, forms, tenses, moods, and voices (of which Greek has far more than English: present, perfect, imperfect, pluperfect, aorist, future, indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative, active, passive, and middle). I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar. But I know some. I have read some of their stuff. And it doesn't "read like yours." Your commentary reads like you have read the text armed only with the Strong's Concordance but without a real knowledge of the languages themselves. And you prefer Strong's to Brown-Driver-Briggs; that is shocking to me! 5. You make bizarre claims (like being enlisted to "counter the claims of the flat-earthers"--what does that even mean?). You claim to be a monk, but you won't say under which order and you claim to be accountable to no organization. Not being able to get a date and studying the Bible with Strong's Concordance in the other hand for 18 years does not make you a monk. Frankly, I'm not convinced. Not one little bit. And I'm pretty sure nobody else is either. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 20, 2021 7:34:13 GMT
How many angels can you make dance at the head of a needle? If you're gonna be overly rigid in analysis then there is nothing you can learn. God left naming all the creatures up to Adam and Eve and their descendants after them. Genesis does not list off all the individual kinds of creatures God made. God knew the more important message of Scripture would be lost if it would take a lifetime just to get through the Torah alone. Fact is, dinosaurs are reptiles. The "reptile terrae" refers to all reptiles, including dinosaurs. And again, in light of all other evidence for the coexistence of dino and man, I think "reptile terrae" is a safe interpretation. But if you are gonna be overly rigid about analysis in Genesis then you lost any chance of ever understanding it. Rigid analysis may be applied to certain situations like science. For example, did you or someone you know or someone you know of ever see the big Bang happen in real time? If not, then the Big Bang is an article of philosophy, not science. The events mentioned in Genesis have ancient witnesses but there are no witnesses to the wild claims of evolutionists. Its all made up. Nobody can possibly know all those things evolutionists claim to know. Its impossible. When studying ancient languages you cannot hold those languages down to a rigid English speaking standard. The word dinosaur did not even exist until 1841. Why would you fuss over the lack of that word in Genesis when "reptile terrae" covers dinosaurs just fine. I think you are being way too overly rigid. I am being fair minded to ancient text. I do that with all ancient texts I examine because I know I'm not reading modern English. So its not an indulgence in being vague and undefined, but more like knowing when to relax rigid analysis and introduce fairness. 1. Translating Hebrew into Latin is not helpful for an English commentary. 2. An appropriate interpretation follows the following steps: a) Discovering the meanings of words based on usages across time but paying special attention to usage at the time the text was finalized. What do the words mean? b) Understanding the use of the words, expressions, and idioms within the context of the text itself and the culture in which the text was written/finalized. What do the sentences mean? c) Distilling the meaning of the text as informed by word meanings and context. What does the text mean? d) Extrapolating the distilled meaning and appropriating it to today's culture. What does the text have to say to us today.
This, of course, is why you don't see the words "dinosaur," "evolution," or "Big Bang" in my commentary. It doesn't address those issues. They appear in yours. This is because you have imposed your agenda prior to step one. That's not just problematic. It is a distortion of the interpretive process and renders your interpretation...kind of useless. You're asking the questions prematurely because those are not the questions addressed by the text in question. 3. Your understanding of "how science works" is painfully and egregiously deficient. Science doesn't require somebody to "observe an event" (I wonder how that works with Genesis 1:1). The process of science is collection of data, forming a hypothesis, and making predictions to test said hypothesis. How would this work with a "past event" like the Big Bang? How can you test that? Well, for one, you create a model that predicts what you might find if that model were accurate. That's falsifiability--an essential part of the process. So here's how it works for the Big Bang: 1) Collect data--almost all stars and galaxies are moving away from us ("red shifted"). 2) Form a hypothesis: extrapolating backwards, it appears as if in the past all these stars and galaxies were in one place and have expanded from there. 3) Various models were introduced. One popular model suggested that if the model were accurate, we would be able to measure leftover "background radiation" from every direction...but not uniform radiation--radiation with a particular gradation. It was impossible to measure this from within the atmosphere because interference would render the subtle measurements impossible. But the COBE satellite was launched in 1989 to measure this Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. If it's not there, or too uniform, the model is falsified. But it was there! As predicted! So now there is corroboration on the model without the requirement of "somebody observing the Big Bang." That doesn't guarantee that the Big Bang happened. But it creates another problem--if the model is false, how else do we account for receding stars and galaxies and also the measured Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that was predicted by the model? None of this information is esoteric or hard to find. 4. You claim to have studied the languages (Hebrew, Greek, and for some reason, Latin) for 18 years. And yet you have not once mentioned the specific forms of Hebrew words (e.g., Niphal or Qal forms). The LXX is valuable as a secondary source for how the text might have been understood hundreds of years subsequent to the "original Hebrew texts" before they were collected, compiled, and edited (probably during the Babylonian Exile). And yet, although you offer Greek words and their basic meanings, you have yet to specify word genders, forms, tenses, moods, and voices (of which Greek has far more than English: present, perfect, imperfect, pluperfect, aorist, future, indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative, active, passive, and middle). I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar. But I know some. I have read some of their stuff. And it doesn't "read like yours." Your commentary reads like you have read the text armed only with the Strong's Concordance but without a real knowledge of the languages themselves. And you prefer Strong's to Brown-Driver-Briggs; that is shocking to me! 5. You make bizarre claims (like being enlisted to "counter the claims of the flat-earthers"--what does that even mean?). You claim to be a monk, but you won't say under which order and you claim to be accountable to no organization. Not being able to get a date and studying the Bible with Strong's Concordance in the other hand for 18 years does not make you a monk. Frankly, I'm not convinced. Not one little bit. And I'm pretty sure nobody else is either. Really? Well that's a new one. i figure it this way: since Latin is the language of paleontology, it only makes since to investigate the Latin Vulgate to find that language. English speaking people seem to only understand the dinosaurs from an English perspective which they inherited from Latin. Then, since the word dinosaur is a modern word, you have to investigate ancient words for dinosaurs. The phrase, "reptile terrae," once again, answers the question pretty well. Dinosaurs are reptiles and reptiles are mentioned in Genesis. That covers it just fine. This, and supportive facts like all the dinosaur art all over the world and dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible as well as Sumerian and Chinese literature. I know how to study exegesis. Been doing it for many years. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Mine is a commentary that explains the meaning of each verse as it was understood by the ancients. The only interpretation that is mine is Genesis 1:3, and all I did was take the next step where the church fathers left off. I explained all this already. You have yet to refute anything I posted using actual Christian exegesis. You gave a modern philosopher's commentary throughout all Day 1. Day 2 was pretty good, though. If you had questions you could have easily asked them politely instead of this constant barrage of ad hominem...which is so common among atheists. I guess that explains why Fiddler is cheerleading for you. This forum might be new but its an extension of the old forum from which I was a member since 2003. I know that Fiddler will never cheerlead for a Christian. 20 years a Bible scholar and you cannot answer this? Rubbish. You're no Bible scholar. A charlatan perhaps, but no Bible scholar. Genesis chapter 1 is Divine revelation which God gave on Mt.Sinai. Plus, Adam and Eve knew God Who created them. But all of Israel saw (a manifestation of) God. So there are witnesses to God's word. No witnesses for evolution. Science requires observation and it doesn't work very well prior to the era of modern science. Yes, you have to see the Big Bang happen in real time or you're just preaching pagan philosophy. That's not science. That's philosophy. On top of that, its bad philosophy, nothing but Deep Space Fantasia.  You can preach your Deep Space Fantasia until you're blue in the face but its all just ancient Greek mythology. Ironically, evolutionists never seem to invent anything. But they write book after book on philosophy--a philosophy they plagiarize from the ancient Greeks and then take credit for it. My commentary didn't call for such. Keep in mind that on FB I wrote for an audience of about 3800 people. People are gonna stop reading if the analysis is too long. You have to know how to make your point in as short amount of words possible without losing the lesson. Being a writer for 18 years has taught me these things. True, some people don't mind a long article at all and I had many people who followed my pages read those long articles, including this commentary, and not complain about the length. But if I do things the way you think they should be done, then I labor for hours and nobody reads it. I didn't need to do anything other than what I did in the commentary. Perhaps you should read it, you might just learn something. Brown-Driver-Briggs is worthless. Its hard to use and its just a lexicon of the KJV. If you want a lexicon of the KJV the best option is a facsimile of the 1928 Webster Dictionary. Take it from a former Anglican lay reader. If you can't learn KJV from an Anglican then you're hopeless. The Strong's is the best because it does a better job capturing the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words. The BDB is just for those who have no knowledge of Hebrew but listen to what some people say online and just blindly trust it. The BDB isn't too bad if you are already familiar with Hebrew, Greek and Latin. But most people aren't. The BDB also does not seem to break things down well either. But, then again, when your reading a lexicon of the KJV, you're not going to get the right breakdown. It is true that there are times when the Strong's is guilty of the same thing (not breaking down words good enough). But from my experience the Strong's does a fine job. Its also the most affordable lexicon on the market. Why spend lots of money on lesser lexicons when you can have the best for much less? Ah, it means that I countered the claims of flat earthers. That simple. As the expression goes: Keep it simple stupid. I have an entire library full of lexicons. I realized that the Strong's is all you need unless you need to find Greek words not listed in the Strong's from the Greek Septuagint. I have 3 lexicons for the Septuagint. As far as my personal life is concerned, I do not need to explain myself to you. You are being a snob. I don't need to tell you anymore. I'll speak through the lessons I teach---lessons you have not refuted in all your ad hominem replies. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 20, 2021 7:38:44 GMT
Discipline. You need lots of discipline. That all starts with humility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 20, 2021 12:53:24 GMT
Strong’s is not a lexicon. It’s a concordance. Of the KJV. Man, it’s like the more you post, the more mistakes you make.
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 21, 2021 1:26:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 16, 2021 21:05:08 GMT
If you accept Gen.1:3 as the earth's core this is how the account harmonizes
Gen. 1:4-5 - the earth goes from shapeless to a moving sphere. As the core churns the earth takes shape as clay to the seal and begins the turn.
Day 3 - the earth's core produces nutrients in the soil. God plants seeds in nutrient enriched soil.
Day 4 - The magnetic field protects the earth and God knows the earth is ready for the sun.
So people ask: What can God do and cannot do? Well God can't be stupid. And stupid is creating the sun before the earth's core. Stupid is planting seeds on a dead planet without a core. God uses the earth to create as mentioned in Genesis.
The early church fathers knew there was something about Gen.1:3 they couldn't quite nail down. St.Augustine was close to solving it but not quite close enough. Had Augustine or other church fathers understood the earth's geological make-up better you better believe the lights would turn on and they would see what was intended in Gen.1:3.
Gen.1:3 IS NOT the Big Bang! It doesn't even harmonize with the Big Bang theory or logical thought to even suggest that. In the Big Bang theory, the bang happens before the earth's existence. If you claim the Big Bang happened in Gen.1:3 then you invent illogical ideas by suggesting the Big Bang happened right next to an already existing earth in an already existing universe! The entire universe was created in Gen.1:1 of Day 1.
Call me arrogant if that helps your case. But I know that I'm making good sense here. Solving problems is my specialty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 16, 2021 22:10:33 GMT
If you accept Gen.1:3 as the earth's core this is how the account harmonizes Gen. 1:4-5 - the earth goes from shapeless to a moving sphere. As the core churns the earth takes shape as clay to the seal and begins the turn. Day 3 - the earth's core produces nutrients in the soil. God plants seeds in nutrient enriched soil. Day 4 - The magnetic field protects the earth and God knows the earth is ready for the sun. So people ask: What can God do and cannot do? Well God can't be stupid. And stupid is creating the sun before the earth's core. Stupid is planting seeds on a dead planet without a core. God uses the earth to create as mentioned in Genesis. The early church fathers knew there was something about Gen.1:3 they couldn't quite nail down. St.Augustine was close to solving it but not quite close enough. Had Augustine or other church fathers understood the earth's geological make-up better you better believe the lights would turn on and they would see what was intended in Gen.1:3. Gen.1:3 IS NOT the Big Bang! It doesn't even harmonize with the Big Bang theory or logical thought to even suggest that. In the Big Bang theory, the bang happens before the earth's existence. If you claim the Big Bang happened in Gen.1:3 then you invent illogical ideas by suggesting the Big Bang happened right next to an already existing earth in an already existing universe! The entire universe was created in Gen.1:1 of Day 1. Call me arrogant if that helps your case. But I know that I'm making good sense here. Solving problems is my specialty. There's a whole lot of presumption in there, most significantly that Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally. Another is egregious misrepresentation. Nobody who suggests that the Big Bang occurs in Genesis 1:3 would suggest that the earth had already been created. It's easy to expose lack of logic in an argument that is never made. Not ever. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 18, 2021 1:08:24 GMT
If you accept Gen.1:3 as the earth's core this is how the account harmonizes Gen. 1:4-5 - the earth goes from shapeless to a moving sphere. As the core churns the earth takes shape as clay to the seal and begins the turn. Day 3 - the earth's core produces nutrients in the soil. God plants seeds in nutrient enriched soil. Day 4 - The magnetic field protects the earth and God knows the earth is ready for the sun. So people ask: What can God do and cannot do? Well God can't be stupid. And stupid is creating the sun before the earth's core. Stupid is planting seeds on a dead planet without a core. God uses the earth to create as mentioned in Genesis. The early church fathers knew there was something about Gen.1:3 they couldn't quite nail down. St.Augustine was close to solving it but not quite close enough. Had Augustine or other church fathers understood the earth's geological make-up better you better believe the lights would turn on and they would see what was intended in Gen.1:3. Gen.1:3 IS NOT the Big Bang! It doesn't even harmonize with the Big Bang theory or logical thought to even suggest that. In the Big Bang theory, the bang happens before the earth's existence. If you claim the Big Bang happened in Gen.1:3 then you invent illogical ideas by suggesting the Big Bang happened right next to an already existing earth in an already existing universe! The entire universe was created in Gen.1:1 of Day 1. Call me arrogant if that helps your case. But I know that I'm making good sense here. Solving problems is my specialty. There's a whole lot of presumption in there, most significantly that Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally. Another is egregious misrepresentation. Nobody who suggests that the Big Bang occurs in Genesis 1:3 would suggest that the earth had already been created. It's easy to expose lack of logic in an argument that is never made. Not ever. First of all, Jesus said Genesis is literal history. The Prophets said Genesis is literal history. The Apostles say Genesis is literal history. The early Church fathers say Genesis is literal history. Today's Bible scholars say Genesis is literal history. You chose heresy over sound doctrine. Secondly, not one ancient scholar would even remotely suggest or even indirectly support a big bang in Genesis 1:3. Third, Genesis 1:2 very clearly says the earth exist. Genesis 1:4-5 are traditionally understood as the earth's first spin as a sphere. Yes, that's ancient exegesis. So if you interpret Genesis 1:3 as some sort of Big Bang then this Big Bang takes place right next to the already existing earth as verse 2 very clearly indicates! Lastly, Day 2 continues the creation of an earth that already exist. You will never understand Genesis chapter 1 as long as you are holding these unorthodox beliefs that are modern in scope with no backing by any reputable scholars, ancient or modern. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 18, 2021 2:04:58 GMT
There's a whole lot of presumption in there, most significantly that Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally. Another is egregious misrepresentation. Nobody who suggests that the Big Bang occurs in Genesis 1:3 would suggest that the earth had already been created. It's easy to expose lack of logic in an argument that is never made. Not ever. First of all, Jesus said Genesis is literal history. He said that, did he? They said that, did they? They said "literal history"? They did, eh? "Literal history"? They said that? They do, eh? All of them? Or do you disregard those that don't as "not real Bible scholars"? That's not heresy. What do you mean by "ancient scholar"? Do you mean a scholar that studies the ancient world? Or a scholar in the ancient world? If the latter, why would they suggest that since it didn't exist as a scientific theory (by the way, Stoic ideas of conflagrations are not "big bang theories"). Not really. It is far more reasonable to see it as introductory, followed by elaboration. You're really hammering on details without dealing with the essence of the issue. But...what do you mean by "reputable scholars"? I know of very reputable biblical scholars that don't take Genesis 1 literally. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 19, 2021 23:00:22 GMT
First of all, Jesus said Genesis is literal history. He said that, did he? They said that, did they? They said "literal history"? They did, eh? "Literal history"? They said that? They do, eh? All of them? Or do you disregard those that don't as "not real Bible scholars"? That's not heresy. What do you mean by "ancient scholar"? Do you mean a scholar that studies the ancient world? Or a scholar in the ancient world? If the latter, why would they suggest that since it didn't exist as a scientific theory (by the way, Stoic ideas of conflagrations are not "big bang theories"). Not really. It is far more reasonable to see it as introductory, followed by elaboration. You're really hammering on details without dealing with the essence of the issue. But...what do you mean by "reputable scholars"? I know of very reputable biblical scholars that don't take Genesis 1 literally. Yes, Jesus, the Prophets, the Apostles, their successors, all agree that Genesis is literal history. St.Augustine used to think it was allegory but he changed his view in The Literal Meaning of Genesis and said it was literal. What I mean by ancient scholar is someone from ancient times. For example, St.Clement of Rome is favorably mention by the Apostle Paul in Philippians 4:3. Clement was a 1st century church father who read globe earth with antipodes from Scripture. In Greek, those words are oikoumene and kosmos. St.Origen confirms the meaning of Clement's statement. Then we have the example from 2nd century theologian Theophilus of Antioch who refuted 19th century evolution theory over a thousand years before Darwin. And Theophilus is by far not the only church father to expose evolution theory as heresy. Even the Apostle Paul, in Romans 1:18-32, prophesied how evolution theory would bring about the wrath of God. If you love God then you believe and trust God. God says evolution theory is a lie. I trust that. I don't need to make up excuses. i stay true to God's word and do not deviate from it. I hold to traditional exegesis and trust not the vain imaginations of 21st century Democrats who follow after the beast. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 20, 2021 21:51:37 GMT
He said that, did he? They said that, did they? They said "literal history"? They did, eh? "Literal history"? They said that? They do, eh? All of them? Or do you disregard those that don't as "not real Bible scholars"? That's not heresy. What do you mean by "ancient scholar"? Do you mean a scholar that studies the ancient world? Or a scholar in the ancient world? If the latter, why would they suggest that since it didn't exist as a scientific theory (by the way, Stoic ideas of conflagrations are not "big bang theories"). Not really. It is far more reasonable to see it as introductory, followed by elaboration. You're really hammering on details without dealing with the essence of the issue. But...what do you mean by "reputable scholars"? I know of very reputable biblical scholars that don't take Genesis 1 literally. Yes, Jesus, the Prophets, the Apostles, their successors, all agree that Genesis is literal history. St.Augustine used to think it was allegory but he changed his view in The Literal Meaning of Genesis and said it was literal. Do you have any literal statements that demonstrate this? Like...direct quotes and such? Just to point out...if someone references the story of, say, Adam or Noah, it doesn't mean he/she takes it literally any more than if I reference the story of Luke Skywalker means I take the story of Star Wars literally. Yeah, at first I thought you mean "scholar of the ancient world," then I second-guessed. Thanks for the clarification. No, he doesn't say that. He says, "The heavens declare the glory of the L ORD." I presume that declaration to not be devious or deceptive. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 22, 2021 0:05:34 GMT
Yes, Jesus, the Prophets, the Apostles, their successors, all agree that Genesis is literal history. St.Augustine used to think it was allegory but he changed his view in The Literal Meaning of Genesis and said it was literal. Do you have any literal statements that demonstrate this? Like...direct quotes and such? Just to point out...if someone references the story of, say, Adam or Noah, it doesn't mean he/she takes it literally any more than if I reference the story of Luke Skywalker means I take the story of Star Wars literally. Yeah, at first I thought you mean "scholar of the ancient world," then I second-guessed. Thanks for the clarification. No, he doesn't say that. He says, "The heavens declare the glory of the L ORD." I presume that declaration to not be devious or deceptive. I don't have to demonstrate anything. The burden of proof is on you. 2000 years of Christian scholarship says God created. All ancient scholars rejected Darwinian evolution well over 1000 years before Darwin was born! Obviously, the Bible i very clear that God created. To say God did not create would require you to quote your sources (and 21st century sources are rejected). In Romans 1:18-32, evolution theory is so condemned that the Apostle Paul prophesied that it will bring about the wrath of God. In 2Pet.3:3-7, the Apostle Peter prophesies how those in the last days will mock the second coming of Christ, and deliberately reject the Flood. Nowhere in the Bible will you be able to justify evolution theory or flat earth. You'd have to resort to 21st century liberal scholars who were rejected by the Apostles as well as all their successor. Evolution theory has always been condemned in the Bible. You can read in the Apocryphal book of Wisdom chapters 1--3 how what the Jewish author thought about Darwin's theory of evolution. The Wisdom of Solomon is dated 50-10 B.C., long before Darwin was born. Here I posted several quotes from a 2nd century theologian, Theophilus of Antioch, who very nicely exposed so-called modern evolution theory. He wasn't the only church father to do this either. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/61836/threadIn this link, I posted from 4th century St.Augustine who exposed the ape-to-man hoax long before Darwin wrote his Descent of Man in the 19th century. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/61831/threadNow what does that tell you when all these ancient scholars are completely rejecting evolution theory? I would hope you have enough sense to see that evolution theory isn't a modern view on science, for starters; that its ancient mythology. Secondly, I would hope that you would have enough sense to see that thee modern scholars you trust would be called heretics by both Christians and Jews for their deliberate misreading of Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible is there a hint that God did not create, that evolution is the way it happen. All throughout the Bible its clear that God CREATED CREATED CREATED! Evolution theory is not an act of creation as their is no Creator in evolution theory. Evolution is based on an accident of random chance. If evolution is the way it happened then Genesis 1:1 should read something like this: In the beginning, nothing accidentally produced random chance that brought forth the heavens and the earth. Of course, evolution is a form of pantheism and the Bible teaches monotheism. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 22, 2021 16:45:36 GMT
Do you have any literal statements that demonstrate this? Like...direct quotes and such? Just to point out...if someone references the story of, say, Adam or Noah, it doesn't mean he/she takes it literally any more than if I reference the story of Luke Skywalker means I take the story of Star Wars literally. Yeah, at first I thought you mean "scholar of the ancient world," then I second-guessed. Thanks for the clarification. No, he doesn't say that. He says, "The heavens declare the glory of the L ORD." I presume that declaration to not be devious or deceptive. I don't have to demonstrate anything. The burden of proof is on you. 2000 years of Christian scholarship says God created. All ancient scholars rejected Darwinian evolution well over 1000 years before Darwin was born! Obviously, the Bible i very clear that God created. To say God did not create would require you to quote your sources (and 21st century sources are rejected). In Romans 1:18-32, evolution theory is so condemned that the Apostle Paul prophesied that it will bring about the wrath of God. In 2Pet.3:3-7, the Apostle Peter prophesies how those in the last days will mock the second coming of Christ, and deliberately reject the Flood. Nowhere in the Bible will you be able to justify evolution theory or flat earth. You'd have to resort to 21st century liberal scholars who were rejected by the Apostles as well as all their successor. Evolution theory has always been condemned in the Bible. You can read in the Apocryphal book of Wisdom chapters 1--3 how what the Jewish author thought about Darwin's theory of evolution. The Wisdom of Solomon is dated 50-10 B.C., long before Darwin was born. Here I posted several quotes from a 2nd century theologian, Theophilus of Antioch, who very nicely exposed so-called modern evolution theory. He wasn't the only church father to do this either. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/61836/threadIn this link, I posted from 4th century St.Augustine who exposed the ape-to-man hoax long before Darwin wrote his Descent of Man in the 19th century. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/61831/threadNow what does that tell you when all these ancient scholars are completely rejecting evolution theory? I would hope you have enough sense to see that evolution theory isn't a modern view on science, for starters; that its ancient mythology. Secondly, I would hope that you would have enough sense to see that thee modern scholars you trust would be called heretics by both Christians and Jews for their deliberate misreading of Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible is there a hint that God did not create, that evolution is the way it happen. All throughout the Bible its clear that God CREATED CREATED CREATED! Evolution theory is not an act of creation as their is no Creator in evolution theory. Evolution is based on an accident of random chance. If evolution is the way it happened then Genesis 1:1 should read something like this: In the beginning, nothing accidentally produced random chance that brought forth the heavens and the earth. Of course, evolution is a form of pantheism and the Bible teaches monotheism. Christian evolutionists don't say "God didn't create." If he didn't use evolution, how did he create? By fiat? And yes, if you make the claim that Jesus, et. al., stated a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis, you kinda do need to demonstrate it. So...you don't get far by making an unsupported claim. And you don't get far by misrepresenting another's position. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 22, 2021 23:29:08 GMT
This topic is for those who want to study Genesis Chapter 1, verse by verse, Day by Day. To make this study fruitful lets not rush too fast ahead since there is plenty to examine in each creation Day of Genesis. Just one small rule. Whenever you quote one of the verses from Genesis chapter 1, please do so in Bold. Then leave your comments under the verse. I will merely start this off with the first verse of the Bible.
Yeah, but who created god?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 22, 2021 23:47:02 GMT
This topic is for those who want to study Genesis Chapter 1, verse by verse, Day by Day. To make this study fruitful lets not rush too fast ahead since there is plenty to examine in each creation Day of Genesis. Just one small rule. Whenever you quote one of the verses from Genesis chapter 1, please do so in Bold. Then leave your comments under the verse. I will merely start this off with the first verse of the Bible.
Yeah, but who created god?
Are you presuming that whatever exists must be created? |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 22, 2021 23:54:54 GMT
Yeah, but who created god?
Are you presuming that whatever exists must be created?
No, but the original poster does, thus has a logical fallacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 23, 2021 0:00:28 GMT
Are you presuming that whatever exists must be created?
No, but the original poster does, thus has a logical fallacy.
Not necessarily a logical fallacy. He doesn't state it as such (that I've seen), but I've heard it described as such: "Everything that comes into existence has a Creator." God doesn't "come into existence." If the universe could (theoretically) "always exist," then why couldn't God "always exist"? |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 23, 2021 0:26:58 GMT
No, but the original poster does, thus has a logical fallacy.
Not necessarily a logical fallacy. He doesn't state it as such (that I've seen), but I've heard it described as such: "Everything that comes into existence has a Creator." God doesn't "come into existence." If the universe could (theoretically) "always exist," then why couldn't God "always exist"?
Nothing, but what explanatory power or predictive power does it give us to say that? What supporting scientific evidence is there that is the case?
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 23, 2021 23:40:06 GMT
This topic is for those who want to study Genesis Chapter 1, verse by verse, Day by Day. To make this study fruitful lets not rush too fast ahead since there is plenty to examine in each creation Day of Genesis. Just one small rule. Whenever you quote one of the verses from Genesis chapter 1, please do so in Bold. Then leave your comments under the verse. I will merely start this off with the first verse of the Bible.
Yeah, but who created god?
We Christians don't believe in a god or any gods. When you use the lowercase g you imply polytheism/pantheism. You need only to ask yourself that question since evolution theory is polytheist/pantheist religion. But, to overlook ad grammar and answer the question you intended to ask, Christians are monotheist. We believe God transcends time and space; that God is Singularity...the "I AM" of Exo.3:14. God always existed and was never created. That's part of the understanding of monotheism, that only one God exist. This one God is the Singularity of all there is, was, or ever will be. God is Eternal Life...our Father. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 24, 2021 0:11:28 GMT
Yeah, but who created god?
We Christians don't believe in a god or any gods. When you use the lowercase g you imply polytheism/pantheism. You need only to ask yourself that question since evolution theory is polytheist/pantheist religion. But, to overlook ad grammar and answer the question you intended to ask, Christians are monotheist. We believe God transcends time and space; that God is Singularity...the "I AM" of Exo.3:14. God always existed and was never created. That's part of the understanding of monotheism, that only one God exist. This one God is the Singularity of all there is, was, or ever will be. God is Eternal Life...our Father.
Evolution is a theory, not a religion.
Christians are very much polytheistic, believing that god is actually three different personalities.
You can believe whatever you want, you have no evidence. If things can exist outside of time and space, then adding a god or gods into the mix just adds complexity for no reason.
|
|
