If Evolution

[Lon]

As I said, you rewrite the text or deny the text.

:nono: This cannot be your only one-trick pony? Literally NOTHING else but a lame accusation without merit or foundation?

The world doesn't work this way Cobra.

Therefore there is no basis for discussion, since you reject what the Bible says.

Your pronouncements don't mean squat. You don't 'get' to assert some feigned authority over someone else.
Your sparse trunk of a few parlor tricks 'can' be considered trolling on this forum and you can get an infraction for doing it to each-and-every-person on TOL because simply pulling out your trunk and flopping it on the table isn't dialogue. You don't get to just skip from thread to thread making the same lame debate ploys over and over again. You WILL be called on it.

And it is really funny that you disproved your own position with the quote of YLT!

An infraction for this particular parlor sleight of hand will go something like this: "TOL is for debate, not simply posturing and posting past, on top, or over another's post. Either enjoin the subject properly or you will find yourself with an infraction or removed from thread. 'TOL mod'"

I don't WANT to see the same thing over and over and over with each new member you come in contact with and they don't deserve the abuse of such parlor tricks. You don't come from an evangelical fellowship. Respect that you are not on your home turf and learn to interact with those you disagree with. Try to 'learn' not just 'dispel' what you view as truth?

 

[George Affleck]

You are trying to create contradictions in God's Word where none exists.

Hi 6days, how's it going?

Ya, this one does that a lot.
Blinded to the truth.

Good exercise though.
Keeps us fit.

 

[Jonahdog]

That MAY be one paraphrase, but not common... and not accurate.
Here are 22 other translations http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-11.htm /QUOTE]

Your deity cannot make sure that his particular message is understood by his creation? Not much power or omniscience there.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That MAY be one paraphrase, but not common... and not accurate.
Here are 22 other translations http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-11.htm

Your deity cannot make sure that his particular message is understood by his creation? Not much power or omniscience there.

Jonah, this thread is for discussion of evolution and origins, it's not for Bible-bashing. Please participate in the conversation with meaningful dialogue or leave.

 

[Jonahdog]

Jonah, this thread is for discussion of evolution and origins, it's not for Bible-bashing. Please participate in the conversation with meaningful dialogue or leave.

The Bible has been quoted many times in this thread to support special creation in a week in the near past. The conflict between Genesis 1 and 2 has been raised to question Biblical accuracy. The latest issue now seems to raise a translation question.
My comment is addressed to the question of how someone can rely on the Bible, in contrast to the real world evidence, when the basis for Biblical reliance is so questionable. You dont get to rely on the honesty and knowledge of your deity if he cannot pass that information on correctly.
Anyone who uses the Bible as a basis for scientific discussion opens the door. Deal with it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Bible has been quoted many times in this thread to support special creation in a week in the near past. The conflict between Genesis 1 and 2 has been raised to question Biblical accuracy. The latest issue now seems to raise a translation question.
My comment is addressed to the question of how someone can rely on the Bible, in contrast to the real world evidence, when the basis for Biblical reliance is so questionable. You dont get to rely on the honesty and knowledge of your deity if he cannot pass that information on correctly.
Anyone who uses the Bible as a basis for scientific discussion opens the door. Deal with it.

Then discuss the translation issue. Your post was Bible bashing, and not discussion. That's what I was (and still am) calling you out on.

Did you notice I said "evolution and origins" above? It means I was fully aware that the Bible was being referenced in this thread. Your bashing of the Bible is not discussion of origins. Make the argument that the Bible is not reliable and provide evidence that supports your argument all you want. But your above post was not doing so, but instead was intentionally misrepresenting the Bible, and was a "poisoning the well" argument.

 

[The Barbarian]

:nono: This cannot be your only one-trick pony? Literally NOTHING else but a lame accusation without merit or foundation?

His claim only stings if you insist that scripture is literally true in all respects without allegory or parable.

Since most Christians acknowledge that Genesis is figurative in many verses, Cobra's point is solid, but beside the point. It only hurts someone who has imposed their own literal interpretation on Genesis.

But the point remains true, even if people don't like it. A few verses aren't much good as a general theology, but when your theology depends on absolute literalism in Genesis, then those verses amount to a complete refutation of that theology.

 

[Jonahdog]

Then discuss the translation issue. Your post was Bible bashing, and not discussion. That's what I was (and still am) calling you out on.

Did you notice I said "evolution and origins" above? It means I was fully aware that the Bible was being referenced in this thread. Your bashing of the Bible is not discussion of origins. Make the argument that the Bible is not reliable and provide evidence that supports your argument all you want. But your above post was not doing so, but instead was intentionally misrepresenting the Bible, and was a "poisoning the well" argument.

The Bible is not evidence of origins. It is a cobbled together collection of stories. The real world evidence supports biologic evolution, an earth billions of years old, a universe even older, and no need for a deity.
But if you need to believe in the inerrancy of your Holy Book to save your imaginary soul---go for it. I let that go a long time ago.

My issue is not with specific translations, it is a question of why your deity does not make sure that his message is crystal clear. Surely he could do that if he existed and if he wished to do so. Perhaps he does exist but he does not wish to speak clearly to us. That raises a number of other issues.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Bible is not evidence of origins. It is a cobbled together collection of stories.

Cobbled together?

Lol, that claim hasn't worked for a long time, and it's the first time I've heard it in a while.

There is evidence (yes, real world archaeological evidence) for almost everything in the Bible, from the price of a slave in Joseph's (son of Jacob) time, to the fact that Israel during their captivity in Egypt buried their loved ones' bodies under the floor in their houses (something the Egyptians did NOT do), from the walls of Jericho to the hanging gardens in Jerusalem, from the garden tomb to the sign in Greece that reads "To the Unknown God." The Bible is more than just a collection of stories, it's actual history.

The real world evidence supports biologic evolution, an earth billions of years old, a universe even older, and no need for a deity.

Now back up that claim with evidence.

 

[6days]

His claim only stings if you insist that scripture is literally true in all respects without allegory or parable.

Straw man (dishonesty)... there is nobody who makes such claims

Since most Christians acknowledge that Genesis is figurative in many verses

There may be some figurative phrases, but Genesis is history. (Likewise, many historical accounts use some figurative language.)

Jesus said "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me..."

 

[2003cobra]

:nono: This cannot be your only one-trick pony? Literally NOTHING else but a lame accusation without merit or foundation?

The world doesn't work this way Cobra.


Your pronouncements don't mean squat. You don't 'get' to assert some feigned authority over someone else.
Your sparse trunk of a few parlor tricks 'can' be considered trolling on this forum and you can get an infraction for doing it to each-and-every-person on TOL because simply pulling out your trunk and flopping it on the table isn't dialogue. You don't get to just skip from thread to thread making the same lame debate ploys over and over again. You WILL be called on it.


An infraction for this particular parlor sleight of hand will go something like this: "TOL is for debate, not simply posturing and posting past, on top, or over another's post. Either enjoin the subject properly or you will find yourself with an infraction or removed from thread. 'TOL mod'"

I don't WANT to see the same thing over and over and over with each new member you come in contact with and they don't deserve the abuse of such parlor tricks. You don't come from an evangelical fellowship. Respect that you are not on your home turf and learn to interact with those you disagree with. Try to 'learn' not just 'dispel' what you view as truth?

Attacking me seems to be your one trick pony.

Rather than attacking me again, why not comment on the topic of the two creation stories?

Was man formed or created when no plants had yet sprung up or after the earth had brought forth vegetation?

 

[2003cobra]

Hi 6days, how's it going?

Ya, this one does that a lot.
Blinded to the truth.

Good exercise though.
Keeps us fit.

It is not a contradiction, unless one demands the stories be taken as literal history.

Rather than attacking me, why not comment on the topic of the two creation stories?

Was man formed or created when no plants had yet sprung up or after the earth had brought forth vegetation?

 

[2003cobra]

Your deity cannot make sure that his particular message is understood by his creation? Not much power or omniscience there.

There are two creation stories there, back to back, with different orders and methods of creation. That should make it clear that these stories are not to be taken as literal history.

Why not read the first two chapters of Genesis and comment. Aren’t there two different stories with different orders and methods of creation?

 

[6days]

Was man formed or created when no plants had yet sprung up or after the earth had brought forth vegetation?

We thought you had no basis for further conversation?
Scripture tells us that there were two categories of plants which did not yet exist when man was created. Skeptics and liberals try find contradictions in God's Word, but Genesis two compliments and is consistent with Genesis 1.

BTW... You didn't answer which paraphrase you quoted from.

 

[2003cobra]

The Bible has been quoted many times in this thread to support special creation in a week in the near past. The conflict between Genesis 1 and 2 has been raised to question Biblical accuracy. The latest issue now seems to raise a translation question.
My comment is addressed to the question of how someone can rely on the Bible, in contrast to the real world evidence, when the basis for Biblical reliance is so questionable. You dont get to rely on the honesty and knowledge of your deity if he cannot pass that information on correctly.
Anyone who uses the Bible as a basis for scientific discussion opens the door. Deal with it.

I don’t think accuracy of the translations is the problem in general. The problem is denial of what the text actually says driven by a modern, Western mindset.

These ancient documents of the Old Testament may have been written for us, in part, but they were not written to us. They were written to ancient Near East peoples. We have to read them in a way that respects the origins and gives more than a nod to their culture.

Trying to force a literal, Western reading of figurative text causes great error and forces many to rewrite and deny the text.

 

[2003cobra]

Then discuss the translation issue. Your post was Bible bashing, and not discussion. That's what I was (and still am) calling you out on.

Did you notice I said "evolution and origins" above? It means I was fully aware that the Bible was being referenced in this thread. Your bashing of the Bible is not discussion of origins. Make the argument that the Bible is not reliable and provide evidence that supports your argument all you want. But your above post was not doing so, but instead was intentionally misrepresenting the Bible, and was a "poisoning the well" argument.

What really needs to be bashed is the concept “it’s literal or it’s a lie.”

Demanding that the first two chapters of Genesis be taken literally is poisonous to truth.

 

[2003cobra]

His claim only stings if you insist that scripture is literally true in all respects without allegory or parable.

Since most Christians acknowledge that Genesis is figurative in many verses, Cobra's point is solid, but beside the point. It only hurts someone who has imposed their own literal interpretation on Genesis.

But the point remains true, even if people don't like it. A few verses aren't much good as a general theology, but when your theology depends on absolute literalism in Genesis, then those verses amount to a complete refutation of that theology.

Well said, thanks.

 

[The Barbarian]

There may be some figurative phrases, but Genesis is history.

For those who believe the modern revision of Genesis as literal history, Cobra's example is the refutation.

If taken literally, the two different creation stories are contradictory.

Jesus said "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me..."

Then believe Him, instead of some modern revisionist.

 

[6days]

Demanding that the first two chapters of Genesis be taken literally is poisonous to truth.

Jesus: "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me"

 

[6days]

For those who believe the modern revision of Genesis as literal history, .

You KNOW that is dishonest. You have been shown numerous times that the majority of early church fathers trusted Moses as literal history.