If Evolution

[Zenn]

2) Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, and He did forgive sins, before His blood was shed.

Yes, and he even commanded others to do so as well.

1) this is off topic

Yeah... sorry about that. I will cease and desist until a more appropriate thread.

Zenn

 

[marhig]

He didn't. Your religion is based upon offering up human blood sacrifice(s) to the god(s) as a payment.

The gospel Jesus taught was not based upon this.

There is a foundational flaw in Christianity that goes quite unrecognized by most all of its adherents.

One cannot pay a debt that has been forgiven, nor can one forgive a debt that's been paid. Forgiveness and payment as resolutions of debt are mutually exclusive.

Zenn

PS: But I doubt than any of y'all have an ear to hear, so let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin, for the Lord will say he never knew most of you.

PPS: WRT Heb. 9:22, sure. According to the Law... So bonus question to anyone who may have the self discipline to Not worship the Google god... When did the angel of the Lord tell Abraham to sacrifice the ram instead?

Can I ask what you believe, don't you believe that Jesus died on the cross to forgive sins?.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you're set on the idea that day can only mean an epoch of time?

You do realize that day can mean "day," right?

Have you got compelling reason to show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?


The Psalms version goes:

For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.​

While the passage in 2 Peter also turns it around to say that a day is like 1,000 years.

Neither of these give compelling reason to believe that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says. In fact, from the context and explicit supporting text, we can see exactly what the phrases mean.

And it's always a chuckle when Darwinists quote II Peter:

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
II Peter 3:1-‬9 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/2pe.3.1-9.NKJV​

How does this show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

I can give you good reason for the use of "the third day" here.

https://youtu.be/8WODFGVsZTs

 

[2003cobra]

:chuckle: More "My ball, my rules!" Instead of crying like a girl, present them. Instead of inanely accusing of dishonesty, address the chapter. I realize you do not see these shortcomings in yourself, but YOU are the man who doesn't dialogue 'honestly' (you don't dialogue the material at all) and you are the one who pouts more than actually discussing. Your short two sentence reply isn't a reply at all.

Let's look (only 3 verses, as I did NOT skip but these 3):


Which "this?" The account just given? Genesis 1:1-2:3 Would seem likely. :think:




So, right smack between Genesis 1:10 and Genesis 1:11, agreed?

Look at Genesis 1 then, man comes after the plants. The purpose of the second chapter, then would seem to be nothing out of order :nono: RATHER it is focusing, like when you see a well made Disney movie, it starts in the little Italian town then scrolls down and zooms in on Geppetto's workshop or the forest and then down to Bambi's hollow. Same here, Moses is focusing on man, and skipping over most of the creation account he JUST gave. There is no contradiction, thus. You simply missed the point. He already gave you the details, this is the summary then onto man's story. He is trying to teach about the condition all Hebrew children found themselves in under the curse of sin. Allegory? Not hardly. Can't be. I will certainly argue with any man that contradicts that. It undoes the Cross, as 6-days has repeatedly said and has in his sig. -Lon

Wow, you did it again!

This is truly incredible.

The first time you skipped from Genesis 2.2 to 2.8.

This time you added in verses 4, 5, and 6.

Still can’t bring yourself to add verse 7!

I will help you with the story, and I don’t need to skip any verses to show that man was formed before any plants were growing in the second creation story.


In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.


Redacting verse 7 is inappropriate.

The text clearly says man was formed when no plants had yet sprung up.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian obseves
Since there are numerous contradictory interpretations of scripture, that seems to be an unfounded conclusion.

God isn't Sovereign?

You aren't sovereign. Man's interpretation of scripture is not scripture.
Barbarian observes:
Whenever science and religion seem to conflict, it's because someone has gotten one or both of them wrong.

Yep, what I said...

Barbarian observes:
As St. Paul says, His creation is an authoritative statement to us, so much so, that we are without excuse.

On the other hand, we can be wrong about His creation just as surely as we can be wrong about his word. If we forget that in both cases we are interpreting what He's showing us, then we are very likely to be misled by ourselves.

Agreed. Venial in most cases? When had "we better get it right?" if such exists?

Whether or not Genesis is literal history is not one of those cases.
Barbarian cites:
"Be careful not to fool yourself. And you're the easiest one for you to fool."
Feynmann

In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another.

We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. -Feynman

THEN your quote

Confronted with the Creationists of today, Feynman would likely lump them in with what he called in a 1974 Caltech commencement speech “Cargo Cult Science,” or “science that isn’t science” but that intimidates “ordinary people with commonsense ideas.” That lecture appears in a collection of Feynman’s speeches, lectures, interviews and articles called The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, which also happens to be the title of the program from which the clip at the top comes.
http://www.openculture.com/2014/03/richard-feynman-on-religion-science.html

Literally, science school literature went from hundred thousand to one million by the 80's and then billions this new century.

Barbarian, observes:
No. Not even close.

In the 1800s, Lord Kelvin's best estimate, based on the thermal transfer of heat from the Sun, was about 24 million years. Shortly after that,(1904) Rutherford discovered radioactivity and that ran it back to several hundred million years at least.

Doesn't matter. It is beyond close.

It's true. And the truth should matter to all of us.

It is exactly what my textbooks said. I remember them vividly. I was a bit shocked to see the jumps, to say the least.

Hmm... let's take a look... (Barbarian pulls down a textbook from 1976:
“The pattern of frequent reversals extends back to about 70 million years, but from 70 to 120 million years ago, most rocks have normal polarity. For at least 600 million years, intervals of mixed polarity have alternated with intervals of dominantly normal or reversed polarity.”
Peter J. Wyllie The Way the Earth Works John Wiley and Sons, 1976.
How old is Earth? (scientific methods)
1. In 1897, Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth was originally molten and calculated a date based on cooling through conduction and radiation. The age of Earth was calculated to be about 24-40 million years based on the laws of thermodynamics.
Unknown at the time was that the Earth has an internal heat source (radioactive decay)
2. In 1899, John Joly (Irish) calculated the rate of delivery of salt to the ocean. River water has only a small concentration of salts. Rivers flow to the sea, therefore, evaporative concentration of salts can be calculated.
By this method, the age of oceans will equal the total salt in oceans (in grams) divided by rate of salt added (grams per year)
Age of Earth was calculated to be 90-100 million years.
Problems: no way to account for recycled salt, salt incorporated into clay minerals, salt deposits.
3. In 1860, the thickness of total sedimentary record is divided by average sedimentation rates (in mm/yr) and calculated to be about 3 million years old. In 1910, the same measurement yields about 1.6 billion years old.
Early measurements of maximum thickness of sediment ranged from 25,000 m to 112,000 m. With more recent mapping, thickness of fossiliferous rocks is at least 150,000 m. The average sedimentation rates are about 0.3 m/1000 years. At this rate, the age of the first fossiliferous rocks is about 500 million years.
Problems: This calculation does not account for past erosion or differences in sedimentation rates; also ancient sedimentary rocks are metamorphosed or melted.
4. Charles Lyell (1800's) compared amount of evolution shown by marine mollusks in the various series of the Tertiary System with the amount that had occurred since the beginning of the Pleistocene. He estimated about 80 million years for the Cenozoic Era alone.
5. Radioactivity is discovered by Henri Becquerel in 1896. In 1905, Rutherford and Boltwood used radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and minerals. Uranium decay produces He, leading to a date of 500 million years for the oldest rocks.
In 1907, Boltwood suspected that lead was the stable end product of the decay of uranium and published the age of a sample of urananite based on Uranium-Lead dating to be 1.64 billion years.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/age_of_the_earth/age_of_the_earth.html
Barbarian observes:
Turns out, it is rocket science, and it's very, very hard. What always surprises me is how often they get it exactly right.

Contrast? I know God's word is infallible.

Unfortunately, God didn't give us any data on solar processes, the age of the Earth, and so on. He did give us intelligence and curiosity. I think I know why.

Barbarian obseves:
O-ring. And here's the real scandal:
Engineers expressed concern about it, and were overruled by some bureaucrat. Richard Feynmann, who investigated, was tipped off by one of them. It's why he got to the bottom of it so quickly.

It wasn't scientists who messed up. Wasn't even the engineers.

A little off the point, I think. Let me try and expand a bit: Of these two ways we can seek truth, both include fallible men BUT only one claims 'source' infallibility

This is what I used to do, when I first got out of the AF. I have master's degree in systems, and did systems safety. So here's your question:
One system consists of a component that never fails, with a component that fails 50% of the time.
Another system consists of a component that never fails and a component that fails 30% of the time. Which system has the highest reliability?

The first represents the Bible, and fallible men's interpretations of it.
The second represents nature and fallible men's interpretations of it. Since there is far more disagreement among theologians than among scientists on fundamentals, there almost certainly has to be less reliability among theologians.

I don't believe this is correct.

How many religions are there? How many different theories of mountain forming are there?
Yep.

Worse? You are 'intimating' that you put more trust in men of science THAN men of God

If you ask a scientist about orogeny (mountain formation) and a random religious leader about the nature of Jesus, you'll find far more disagreement among the major religions than among scientists.

Barbarian observes:
It's more important to get God right than to get nature right. But we shouldn't kid ourselves; we are as likely to get God wrong as to get nature wrong.

I think you believe this, but it is incorrect and wrong.

It's demonstrably correct. As you see, there is far more disagreement on fundamental things among theologians than among scientists.

 

[Stripe]

Of course, "polarity" in rocks is a myth.

 

[Lon]

The text clearly says man was formed when no plants had yet sprung up.

Er, next sentence: Put him in the garden (that was already there). Point? You are trying to make chapter divisions divine. :nono: They are often done terribly.

 

[Lon]

PS: But I doubt than any of y'all have an ear to hear, so let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin, for the Lord will say he never knew most of you.

Wow, claiming any who disagree with you are hell-bound. Yowsa what an ego!

PPS: WRT Heb. 9:22, sure. According to the Law... So bonus question to anyone who may have the self discipline to Not worship the Google god... When did the angel of the Lord tell Abraham to sacrifice the ram instead?

Genesis 22:2,8,13

 

[Lon]

Confronted with the Creationists of today, Feynman would likely lump them in with what he called in a 1974 Caltech commencement speech “Cargo Cult Science,” or “science that isn’t science” but that intimidates “ordinary people with commonsense ideas.”

That lecture appears in a collection of Feynman’s speeches, lectures, interviews and articles called The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, which also happens to be the title of the program from which the clip at the top comes.

Out of context, he was addressing 'scientists' or so-called. Try also to accurately portray your quotes so as not to plagiarize.

http://www.openculture.com/2014/03/richard-feynman-on-religion-science.html

From your article: Feynman’s scientific attitude is profoundly agnostic; he’d rather “live with doubt than have answers that might be wrong.”
That means he said science isn't about truth, it is about doubt! Ahem, and THEN "Barbarian observes:"

Barbarian, observes:
No. Not even close.

In the 1800s, Lord Kelvin's best estimate, based on the thermal transfer of heat from the Sun, was about 24 million years. Shortly after that,(1904) Rutherford discovered radioactivity and that ran it back to several hundred million years at least.

See, again, it doesn't matter BECAUSE that isn't what was in my textbook. It means there is a HUGE disconnect between what one scientist does or believes he's discovered and what is then taught to public school students. You can blame the schools curriculum for poor research and 'scientists' who created those textbooks not keeping up.

It's true. And the truth should matter to all of us.

Not what I meant. I meant that it doesn't matter what a scientist thinks if a wrong or alternate science view is taught in schools.

Hmm... let's take a look... (Barbarian pulls down a textbook from 1976:
“The pattern of frequent reversals extends back to about 70 million years, but from 70 to 120 million years ago, most rocks have normal polarity. For at least 600 million years, intervals of mixed polarity have alternated with intervals of dominantly normal or reversed polarity.”
Peter J. Wyllie The Way the Earth Works John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

Supposing that my school district had that particular textbook. I think you hear, but aren't understanding.

How old is Earth? (scientific methods)
1. In 1897, Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth was originally molten and calculated a date based on cooling through conduction and radiation. The age of Earth was calculated to be about 24-40 million years based on the laws of thermodynamics.
Unknown at the time was that the Earth has an internal heat source (radioactive decay)
2. In 1899, John Joly (Irish) calculated the rate of delivery of salt to the ocean. River water has only a small concentration of salts. Rivers flow to the sea, therefore, evaporative concentration of salts can be calculated.
By this method, the age of oceans will equal the total salt in oceans (in grams) divided by rate of salt added (grams per year)
Age of Earth was calculated to be 90-100 million years.
Problems: no way to account for recycled salt, salt incorporated into clay minerals, salt deposits.
3. In 1860, the thickness of total sedimentary record is divided by average sedimentation rates (in mm/yr) and calculated to be about 3 million years old. In 1910, the same measurement yields about 1.6 billion years old.
Early measurements of maximum thickness of sediment ranged from 25,000 m to 112,000 m. With more recent mapping, thickness of fossiliferous rocks is at least 150,000 m. The average sedimentation rates are about 0.3 m/1000 years. At this rate, the age of the first fossiliferous rocks is about 500 million years.
Problems: This calculation does not account for past erosion or differences in sedimentation rates; also ancient sedimentary rocks are metamorphosed or melted.
4. Charles Lyell (1800's) compared amount of evolution shown by marine mollusks in the various series of the Tertiary System with the amount that had occurred since the beginning of the Pleistocene. He estimated about 80 million years for the Cenozoic Era alone.
5. Radioactivity is discovered by Henri Becquerel in 1896. In 1905, Rutherford and Boltwood used radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and minerals. Uranium decay produces He, leading to a date of 500 million years for the oldest rocks.
In 1907, Boltwood suspected that lead was the stable end product of the decay of uranium and published the age of a sample of urananite based on Uranium-Lead dating to be 1.64 billion years.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/age_of_the_earth/age_of_the_earth.html

Thanks for showing the faults. Feyman's assessed position on science: "Feynman’s scientific attitude is profoundly agnostic; he’d rather “live with doubt than have answers that might be wrong.”

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, it is rocket science, and it's very, very hard. What always surprises me is how often they get it exactly right.

Even the guy that does it from his own back yard? Hard, but very very?

Unfortunately, God didn't give us any data on solar processes, the age of the Earth, and so on. He did give us intelligence and curiosity. I think I know why.

"Feynman’s scientific attitude is profoundly agnostic; he’d rather “live with doubt than have answers that might be wrong.”
A scientific mind is good. We rather, however, find out 'what works for us' more than discover 'truth.' Because God is vast, truth will be too. We'll find bits but scripture is Revelation from the One who is true. There is a difference between the finite trying to grasp as many pieces as possible of reality and God, Who is all of it, telling you something is true and will not/cannot change. Heaven and earth will pass away and science will be naught at that point. All of it.

Barbarian obseves:
O-ring. And here's the real scandal:
Engineers expressed concern about it, and were overruled by some bureaucrat. Richard Feynmann, who investigated, was tipped off by one of them. It's why he got to the bottom of it so quickly.

It wasn't scientists who messed up. Wasn't even the engineers.



This is what I used to do, when I first got out of the AF. I have master's degree in systems, and did systems safety. So here's your question:
One system consists of a component that never fails, with a component that fails 50% of the time.
Another system consists of a component that never fails and a component that fails 30% of the time. Which system has the highest reliability?

The first represents the Bible, and fallible men's interpretations of it.
The second represents nature and fallible men's interpretations of it. Since there is far more disagreement among theologians than among scientists on fundamentals, there almost certainly has to be less reliability among theologians.

Kudos on your science degree and work but this is simply humanistic by the numbers. What IS the difference between the two? The Holy Spirit. Remember me saying 'prayer and dependency?' I worry about a man that DOESN'T recognize the difference, Barbarian.

How many religions are there? How many different theories of mountain forming are there?
Yep.

Holy cow! You trust science more than the Lord Jesus Christ, Barbarian! You REALIZE you just intimated that clearly, right? :noway:

If you ask a scientist about orogeny (mountain formation) and a random religious leader about the nature of Jesus, you'll find far more disagreement among the major religions than among scientists.

Again, COMPLETELY eliminating God working to reveal truth John 16:13. Holy cow.

Barbarian observes:
It's more important to get God right than to get nature right. But we shouldn't kid ourselves; we are as likely to get God wrong as to get nature wrong.

Holy Cow!

It's demonstrably correct.

Holy Cow!

As you see, there is far more disagreement on fundamental things among theologians than among scientists.

Er, you went immediately from something simple like mountain formation instead of quantum physics or Einstein's theories and compared it to the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ! :noway: I 'think' you've become indoctrinated and no longer think! :noway:

 

[6days]

Barbarian reminds Stipe:
Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

Biologos prints articles from almost anyone, including atheists who attempt to deny Adam was a historical person.

Why do you continue repeating things you know are false?

 

[2003cobra]

Er, next sentence: Put him in the garden (that was already there). Point? You are trying to make chapter divisions divine. :nono: They are often done terribly.

I never mentioned the chapter divisions. They aren’t close to perfect. The second creation story begins in Genesis 2.4b. Do you make false accusations to distract from you translation shopping and demonstrated desire to cut Genesis 2.7 out of the text?

You have done translation shopping and chose one that was intentionally mistranslated.

Here are the next verses:
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (NRSV)

Even the KJV got it right:
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed .9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


The five Hebrew scholars who translated the Torah for the NET Bible point out your error:

sn The Lord God planted an orchard. Nothing is said of how the creation of this orchard took place. A harmonization with chap. 1 might lead to the conclusion that it was by decree, prior to the creation of human life. But the narrative sequence here in chap. 2 suggests the creation of the garden followed the creation of the man. Note also the past perfect use of the perfect in the relative clause in the following verse.


By the way, which translation did you put in your shopping basket? Is it the translation you typically and routinely use?

I typically and routinely use the NRSV.

So, your translation shopping and denials of the text are without benefit.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian reminds Stipe:
Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

Biologos prints articles from almost anyone, including atheists who attempt to deny Adam was a historical person.

So does TOL. You claiming that TOL denies that Adam is an historical person? Seriously.

Why do you continue repeating things you know are false? As you know, Biologos does not deny that Adam was an historical person. The founder of Biologos claims that Adam was a real person.

 

[6days]

Er, next sentence: Put him in the garden (that was already there). Point? You are trying to make chapter divisions divine. :nono: They are often done terribly.

that is true but also be aware that Cobra is knowingly trying to deceive you.
He KNOWS that scripture does NOT say "man was formed when no plants had yet sprung up". He KNOWS from previous posts here that two specific types of plants did not exist when man was formed ( likely thorny plants and cultivated grains). As scripture tells us and as you know all other types of vegetation did exist and were created on day three. Cobra would rather rely on footnotes from evolutionist in his liberal Bible then on what the scripture actually says.

 

[Derf]

Confronted with the Creationists of today, Feynman...

Feynman IS a creationist of today.

 

[2003cobra]

that is true but also be aware that Cobra is knowingly trying to deceive you.
He KNOWS that scripture does NOT say "man was formed when no plants had yet sprung up".

Do you believe that you have the gift of discernment, and that you know with certainty what other people know?

Have the elders in your church validated that belief? Because I am here to tell you that your supposed gift failed in this case.

I know the scripture says, in the second creation story, that man was formed before any plants were growing.

Cobra would rather rely on footnotes from evolutionists in his liberal Bible...

You think the 5 Hebrew scholars who wrote the translators notes for the NET Bible, some who received their PhD’s from Dallas Theological Seminary and all of whom taught there are liberal evolutionists rather than Christian scholars?

6days, you certainly have an imagination.

Here are the names of the people you libel:

Old Testament Translators and Editors

Pentateuch:

Richard E. Averbeck, Ph.D.
(Dropsie College)19
Richard E. Averbeck, PhD
Director of the PhD (Theological Studies)
Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages
Education
BA, Calvary Bible College
MDiv, MA, Grace Theological Seminary
PhD, Annenberg Research Institute, Dropsie College
Contact
847-317-8017 raverbec@tiu.edu
Dr. Averbeck taught for four years at Dallas Theological Seminary, teaching in both the Old Testament and pastoral ministries departments. He also taught for ten years at Grace Theological Seminary, serving as chair of the Old Testament department for four years and chair of the seminary curriculum planning committee for five. His areas of expertise include Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, ancient Near Eastern history and languages, Old Testament criticism, Hebrew, and biblical counseling. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, the American Oriental Society, the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. Dr. Averbeck has been published in several journals and has contributed numerous articles to Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Baker, 1995), Faith, Tradition, and History (Eisenbrauns, 1994), Cracking Old Testament Codes: Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Literary Forms (Broadman and Holman, 1995), the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Zondervan, 1997), and Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (InterVarsity, 2003). He has coedited the volume and written a major article in Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Micheal C. Astour (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1997) and was the main editor with a major chapter in Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East (CDL Press, 2003). He has translated and written notes for Numbers 18-36 for The Holman Christian Standard Bible and Leviticus for The NET Bible (New English Translation).


Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)
Robert B. Chisholm
Department Chair and Senior Professor of Old Testament Studies at DTS

BA, Syracuse University, 1973; MDiv, Grace Theological Seminary, 1976; ThM, 1978; ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983

While Dr. Chisholm enjoys teaching the full breadth of Old Testament Studies, he takes special delight in the books of Judges, Samuel, Isaiah, and Amos. Dr. Chisholm has published seven books, most recently commentaries on Judges-Ruth and on 1-2 Samuel. He was translation consultant for the International Children's Bible and for The Everyday Bible and is senior Old Testament editor for the NET Bible. Any discussion with Dr. Chisholm on the Old Testament, however, can be quickly sidetracked when mentioning Syracuse University basketball or the New York Yankees, teams which probably do not have a greater fan outside the state of New York, much to the chagrin of his colleagues.



Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dorian G. Coover-Cox
Associate Professor of Old Testament Studies at DTS

BA, Wheaton College, 1975; MA(BS), Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984; ThM, 1988; PhD, 2001.

Dr. Coover-Cox has been a part of DTS as a student, a teacher, and associate editor for Bibliotheca Sacra. Originally she came to the Seminary to become a better editor; she found, however, that what she enjoys most about editing is helping people learn. While still an editor, she has found her niche in the classroom as well, encouraging students as they learn Hebrew. She has special interest in the Book of Exodus and in literary analysis of narratives and poetry.



Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D.
(Columbia University)
Eugene Haines Merrill is an Old Testament scholar who has served as a distinguished professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and 2010 president of the Evangelical Theological Society.



Allen P. Ross, Ph.D.
(Cambridge University)
Allen P. Ross (PhD, University of Cambridge) is professor of divinity at Beeson Divinity School. Prior to this, he taught at Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry and Dallas Theological Seminary. His publications include Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis , Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus , and Introducing Biblical Hebrew .



What evidence of your accusations would you like to provide?

 

[The Barbarian]

Out of context, he was addressing 'scientists' or so-called.

As you know, Feynmann considered YE creationism to be another cargo cult.

From your article: Feynman’s scientific attitude is profoundly agnostic; he’d rather “live with doubt than have answers that might be wrong.”
That means he said science isn't about truth, it is about doubt!

No, it's about making inferences from evidence.

(Barbarian demonstrates that it's been well over 100 years since scientists realized the world was at least many millions of years old)

See, again, it doesn't matter BECAUSE that isn't what was in my textbook.

It doesn't matter what was in whatever book you remember. What matters is the truth, and as you see, the truth is that your statement denying the fact, is demonstrably wrong. I used to review textbooks, and I have a collection of old ones, going back to the early 1900s. None of them say the earth is less than millions of years old. So I have no idea what you were looking at. I know that when I was in school in the early 60s, the textbooks said billions of years old.

It means there is a HUGE disconnect between what one scientist does or believes he's discovered and what is then taught to public school students.

Not in any school I've ever seen. Can you provide us some kind of evidence to support that story?

You can blame the schools curriculum for poor research and 'scientists' who created those textbooks not keeping up.

Most publishers these days, don't have scientists write science textbooks. But as I said, but the early 60s at least, the were talking about billions of years old.

(Barbarian points out that an infallible source, interpreted by a fallible source, will result in a fallible interpretation)

Kudos on your science degree and work but this is simply humanistic by the numbers. What IS the difference between the two? The Holy Spirit.

But everyone says they are influenced by the Holy Spirit, and they still disagree. So that's not an infallible test, either. My guess is that the Holy Spirit doesn't even get involved in the age of the Earth.

The point is that if you have a fallible person interpreting a completely infallible source of information such as God or His creation, then the interpretation will be fallible.

Holy cow! You trust science more than the Lord Jesus Christ, Barbarian!

I trust science more than a lot of people who think they speak for Jesus. Not the same thing at all.

You REALIZE you just intimated that clearly, right?

It's not uncommon for those who claim to speak for God, to confuse themselves with God. I really hope that's not what you just did here.

Holy Cow!

Indeed.

Er, you went immediately from something simple like mountain formation

Everything seems simple to one who doesn't know anything about it.

instead of quantum physics or Einstein's theories and compared it to the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ!

I compared it to human theologies. You're very, very wrong if you think anyone's theology comes even close to completely comprehending God. Theology is not God, although a lot of "religious" people think so.

I 'think' you've become indoctrinated and no longer think!

I'm trying to encourage you to think.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian reminds Stipe: Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.So does TOL. You claiming that TOL denies that Adam is an historical person? Seriously. Why do you continue repeating things you know are false? As you know, Biologos does not deny that Adam was an historical person. The founder of Biologos claims that Adam was a real person.

Back on topic: "Six days." That's what the Bible says. Blablarian stamps his feet and yells in frustration: "Billions of years!"

 

[6days]

Biologos prints articles from almost anyone, including atheists who attempt to deny Adam was a historical person.

So does TOL. You claiming that TOL denies that Adam is an historical person? Seriously.

Stripe said you were stupid. I was thinking 'No he isn't stupid... just dishonest. But maybe Stripe is correct after all. In order to defend a heretical organization you pretend to not know the difference between articles published in Biologos, and opinions discussed in forum open to all.


If you think Biologos believes in a historical Adam (You know they don't) let's see one article they print clearly defending Adam as the first human and the Gospel connection to Last Adam.


Biologos may have started as a honest organization with good intentions, but they have shifted into promoting heresy. Christians should not be deceived, nor defend a ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[Lon]

I never mentioned the chapter divisions. They aren’t close to perfect. The second creation story begins in Genesis 2.4b. Do you make false accusations to distract from you translation shopping and demonstrated desire to cut Genesis 2.7 out of the text?

You have done translation shopping and chose one that was intentionally mistranslated.

Assuming and assertions. I'm not really interested in your casual thoughts, Cobra.

Here are the next verses:
And the Lord God [had] planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (NRSV)

Even the KJV got it right:
And the LORD God[had] planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed .9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


The five Hebrew scholars who translated the Torah for the NET Bible point out your error:

sn The Lord God planted an orchard. Nothing is said of how the creation of this orchard took place. A harmonization with chap. 1 might lead to the conclusion that it was by decree, prior to the creation of human life. But the narrative sequence here in chap. 2 suggests the creation of the garden followed the creation of the man. Note also the past perfect use of the perfect in the relative clause in the following verse.


By the way, which translation did you put in your shopping basket? Is it the translation you typically and routinely use?

I typically and routinely use the NRSV.[/QUOTE]
Fixed a few of those for you. Thanks for sharing that YOU shop translations though :noway:

So, your translation shopping and denials of the text are without benefit.

Not only that, 'if' it had gone as you say, opposite, then clearly evolution is out the window. It is a LOT to hang on the Hebrew that may certainly be rendered 'had planted.' Again, I'm not really concerned about your particular language prowess or lack thereof. -Lon

 

[Stripe]

Stripe said you were stupid. I was thinking 'No he isn't stupid... just dishonest. But maybe Stripe is correct after all.

Koban could not figure it out either. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.