If Evolution

[Lon]

That's how the reformation happened, after all.

"
Yup. For the most part, it is dragging the "scripture is full of errors" doctrine into the conversation (his only real interest on TOL).

If the answer to EVERY thread is 'scripture isn't inerrant' it is going to be troll infractions.

Interpretation disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is also an important conversation, but he's pushing beyond the thread.

 

[Lon]

Insulting me again?

You and Zenn don't seem to know what an actual insult is lain:

That seems to be all you have.

:nono: I'm telling you, there may be an infraction involved in the near future. I am not going to let you do the same inane 'ignorant' and 'you don't know the bible' bashing on others. 6 Days certainly doesn't deserve it. Nobody does. Take your one-nonhit-wonder away.

I am more interested in discussing the scriptures.

:nono: YOU are interested in insinuating yourself as SOLE authority and interpreter of said scriptures that YOU don't even believe are 'scriptures.' :noway: NOBODY needs you as mediator between God and man and the posturing you shove needs to stop. PROVE a point. Simply asserting it over and over and over AND bringing into a thread 'errancy' for every topic isn't gonna fly here. It is, frankly, trolling and it is against TOL rules.

 

[2003cobra]

Haha... So there are contradictory versions of the ten commandments also? If you want help finding supposed contradictions, there are atheist web sites such as Talkorigins to help you.

I didn’t say they were contradictions.

I just thought it was interesting that there are two versions. They both say the same 10; they just give different reasons for the Sabbath.

It is also interesting that you have never noticed. Perhaps you are spending too much time trying to convince people of an unimportant and incorrect view on creation.

 

[2003cobra]

If someone writes a book about, say, George Washington, and writes a few paragraphs about his entire life, making note of key points in his life, and then writes several more chapters about lesser events, but doesn't include the same details that he wrote in the first few paragraphs, does that mean that Washington was two different people? Or does it mean that Washington one person, and that the author is keeping things relevant relative to what he's writing at the moment?

This question doesn’t seem relevant to the topic, but I will reply.

George Washington was born in 1732.

If someone wrote a story saying George Washington was born before the year 1732 began AND in the next chapter of the story said George Washington was born after the year 1732 began, then we have two versions that are incompatible as literal history.

That is what we have in the creation stories.

The first creation story says that man was created after the earth had brought forth plants.

The second creation story says that man was formed before any plants were growing.

Both cannot be literal history.

By the way, if you would like to remember George’s birth year, just take the square root of 3.

 

[2003cobra]

You and Zenn don't seem to know what an actual insult is lain:


:nono: I'm telling you, there may be an infraction involved in the near future. I am not going to let you do the same inane 'ignorant' and 'you don't know the bible' bashing on others. 6 Days certainly doesn't deserve it. Nobody does. Take your one-nonhit-wonder away.

:nono: YOU are interested in insinuating yourself as SOLE authority and interpreter of said scriptures that YOU don't even believe are 'scriptures.' :noway: NOBODY needs you as mediator between God and man and the posturing you shove needs to stop. PROVE a point. Simply asserting it over and over and over AND bringing into a thread 'errancy' for every topic isn't gonna fly here. It is, frankly, trolling and it is against TOL rules.

Interesting that you don’t seem to want to engage in a discussion of the scripture.

You seem to be reading things into my posts that aren’t there.

 

[2003cobra]

"
Yup. For the most part, it is dragging the "scripture is full of errors" doctrine into the conversation (his only real interest on TOL).

If the answer to EVERY thread is 'scripture isn't inerrant' it is going to be troll infractions.

Interpretation disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is also an important conversation, but he's pushing beyond the thread.

You do know that I have not made any comments about inerrancy concerning the two creation stories, don’t you?

That is something you have raised, not me.

My point is that the stories are not literal history. That is not a comment on inerrancy. It is a comment on interpretation.

And I don’t recall anyone saying the scriptures are “full of errors.” But that is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Lon]

You do know that I have not made any comments about inerrancy concerning the two creation stories, don’t you?

That is something you have raised, not me.

Incorrect. Another ALREADY called you on it in thread:

Your 'argument has no basis. Genesis 2 compliments and is consistent with Genesis 1. You are trying to create contradictions in God's Word where none exists.

My point is that the stories are not literal history.

That is not a comment on inerrancy. It is a comment on interpretation.

Er, no.

You want to change the subject from the fact that the second creation story has a different order of creation and method of creation from the first.

Are you aware that the other version of the 10 commandments does not include that phrase?

Your 'argument has no basis. Genesis 2 compliments and is consistent with Genesis 1. You are trying to create contradictions in God's Word where none exists.

While not saying 'errancy,' there it is.

...were plants already growing when man was formed or created?
If you answer yes, you are rewriting the second creation story.
If you answer no, you are rewriting the first creation story.

This is the second creation story. The first is very different. Put back to back in the text, together they make a clear point that we are not to take these as literal history.

lain:

And I don’t recall anyone saying the scriptures are “full of errors.” But that is not the topic of this thread.

You do. This one? Just another in a long line of them in your file cabinet to unload on the next thread.

 

[Stripe]

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.

Sorry, Barbarian. The Bible makes it clear: Evolution is a non-starter.

 

[Stripe]

Compared to the latter thousands of years since creation, the first six days ARE the beginning of creation.

What Jesus said is incompatible with ANYTHING BUT the creation story in Genesis.

The sixth day, if taken to mean a few thousand years after the first "day," would not be at the beginning of creation. Same if "day" means millions or billions of years.

Yet if day means a literal, 24-hour period, then "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female" makes perfect sense, because day six is closer to the beginning of the universe than it is to six thousand, or six million, or six billion years later.

Day six is within an acceptable period of time to be able to say "from the beginning" and include day six.

[URL="https://answersingenesis.org/family/marriage/but-from-the-beginning-of-the-institution-of-marriage/]AIG says[/URL] that the word "creation" in the phrase "at the beginning of the creation" is a noun referring to what has been created. Thus the phrase might better be understood as: "At the beginning of history," or "at the beginning of the world," or even just "at the beginning."

 

[Stripe]

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.

This is because you are too stupid to engage rationally. We do not use the Bible as evidence; we assume the truth of it and use evidence to falsify it.

Science.

Darwinists have no capacity for such intellectual consistency. They assume the truth of their religion and then use it as evidence.

 

[6days]

Interesting that you don’t seem to want to engage in a discussion of the scripture.

Cobra, it was you who declined to engage on a discussion of Scripture.(You wouldn't answer as to why Jesus died). Genesis is the foundation to the Gospel (and every Christian doctrine) and without Adam and Eve and their literal history, the cross becomes meaningless. So, once again, this question.....
Why couldn't Jesus just forgive peoples sin without having to physically die?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.[/quote]

Sorry, Barbarian. The Bible makes it clear: Evolution is a non-starter.

We know you desperately want to believe it. But as you learned, there is no conflict between Genesis and evolutionary theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's how the reformation happened, after all.

"
Yup. For the most part, it is dragging the "scripture is full of errors" doctrine into the conversation

Luther got his way mostly, but even his fellow protestants wouldn't go so far as to remove James from the Bible, as Luther wished.

If the answer to EVERY thread is 'scripture isn't inerrant' it is going to be troll infractions.

Obviously, there are many things in the Bible that are not literally true, and many stories that are parables. The Bible itself says so.

 

[patrick jane]

Barbarian observes:
That's how the reformation happened, after all.



Luther got his way mostly, but even his fellow protestants wouldn't go so far as to remove James from the Bible, as Luther wished.



Obviously, there are many things in the Bible that are not literally true, and many stories that are parables. The Bible itself says so.

Your father the devil tells you to spread lies and doubt.

 

[2003cobra]

Incorrect. Another ALREADY called you on it in thread:

I said I did not mention inerrancy, only interpretation, in the matter of Genesis 1 and 2.

If 6days did, that was not me. I am not responsible for his posts.

Strange that you would accuse me for what he writes.

You do. This one? Just another in a long line of them in your file cabinet to unload on the next thread.

If you want to make the false claim that I wrote “full of errors” in anything other than a denial that the Bible is “full of errors,” then you should provide evidence of that. It didn’t happen.

And inerrancy is not the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss that, I encourage you to start another thread and stop trying to derail this one.

I believe I specifically wrote that this is not an error in the Bible, it is an error in interpretation.

 

[2003cobra]

Cobra, it was you who declined to engage on a discussion of Scripture.(You wouldn't answer as to why Jesus died). Genesis is the foundation to the Gospel (and every Christian doctrine) and without Adam and Eve and their literal history, the cross becomes meaningless. So, once again, this question.....
Why couldn't Jesus just forgive peoples sin without having to physically die?

I understand that you would like to change the subject, shifting it away from the two creation stories and how they differ in order and method of creation.

If I gave into that change of subject, and the next one you raise, and the one after that, we will never get back to the two creation stories and how the Bible clearly tells us we are not to take them literally.

So, I prefer to stick with Genesis 1 and 2.

I understand from your past posts that you have simply denied what the text actually says. So that does not give us a basis for discussion.

The first creation story says the earth brought forth all kinds of vegetation on Day 3. You deny that and say that it was just some kinds of vegetation.

The second creation story says man was formed when no plants had yet sprung up. It specifically says there were no domesticated plants because there was no man to till the ground and there were no wild plants because there was no rain. You deny that.

The first creation story says man was created after the animals. The second creation story says man was alone so God formed the animals to find man a partner. You deny that.

So, I am sure moving the subject away from Genesis 1 and 2 would help mask those rejections of the text. But I would prefer to stick to the topic at hand.

 

[2003cobra]

...
We know you desperately want to believe it. But as you learned, there is no conflict between Genesis and evolutionary theory.

Yes, there is no conflict!

And the scriptures make it clear, with two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation back-to-back in the text, that we cannot and should not take the early chapters of Genesis literally.

In fact, even atheists who believe the earth brought forth life can find support for that view in the first chapter of Genesis: it say the earth brought forth life and the waters brought forth life.

 

[Jonahdog]

Sorry, Barbarian. The Bible makes it clear: Evolution is a non-starter.

then your Holy Book is incompatible with the real world

 

[Jonahdog]

If there's evidence as readily available as you say it is, then please, just give one or two examples for each of the claims you made above.

It's not my job to go looking for that evidence.

Onus probandi.

The Latin is impressive. But your underlying knowledge of the evidence in the real world is not, unless you are 10 years old and being held captive by a fundamentalist family.
Broaden your education if you dare.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Latin is impressive. But your underlying knowledge of the evidence in the real world is not, unless you are 10 years old and being held captive by a fundamentalist family.
Broaden your education if you dare.

It's not my responsibility to prove my own position wrong, Jonah. The onus is on you to prove your position is right.