PDA

View Full Version : Creationists lose in Texas Education Board fight




Pages : [1] 2

Agorism
07-23-2011, 08:12 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/texas-education-board-mak_n_907400.html




The lessons in question included a lab comparison on chimpanzee and human skulls, the fossil record and cell complexity.

A board-appointed reviewer had called the lessons errors and recommended changes, but a group of scientists objected on Friday, threatening to re-ignite a fierce debate over teaching evolution in Texas public schools.

The board's social conservatives compromised when it appeared they would lose a vote to reject the reviewer's changes in favor of the original lessons.

Instead of a showdown vote on evolution, the panel agreed to approve the material and have Education Commissioner Robert Scott continue working on the lessons in question with publisher Holt McDougal.

"Today we saw Texas kids and sound science finally win a vote on the State Board of Education," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that supports mainstream scientists in the teaching of evolution and has repeatedly sparred with board conservatives over education standards.

"We saw the far right's stranglehold over the state board is finally loosening," Miller said.

sevin
07-23-2011, 08:13 AM
Without the Department of Education we wouldn't have these kinds of debates. People could just send their kids to schools that have a curriculum they agree with.

COpatriot
07-23-2011, 08:44 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/texas-education-board-mak_n_907400.html

Thumbs up

LibertyEagle
07-23-2011, 08:56 AM
Without the Department of Education we wouldn't have these kinds of debates. People could just send their kids to schools that have a curriculum they agree with.

Yup. It's the only solution that I see. Parents should be making these decisions, not a bunch of elitist bureaucrats.

swiftfoxmark2
07-23-2011, 09:01 AM
You know, if people just homeschool, you don't have to deal with these folks. Government school is pretty useless these days anyway.

wannaberocker
07-23-2011, 09:35 AM
Without the Department of Education we wouldn't have these kinds of debates. People could just send their kids to schools that have a curriculum they agree with.

1+
Public school education is more political brainwashing and less education.

Echoes
07-23-2011, 09:42 AM
Without the Department of Education we wouldn't have these kinds of debates. People could just send their kids to schools that have a curriculum they agree with.

It's that simple.

Everyone rep this.

Echoes
07-23-2011, 09:46 AM
You know, if people just homeschool, you don't have to deal with these folks. Government school is pretty useless these days anyway.

I agree totally but it's hard for some folks, ppl have to work and already pay crushing school taxes, they figure might as well send them to public schools since they're being extorted anyway.

moostraks
07-23-2011, 10:28 AM
I agree totally but it's hard for some folks, ppl have to work and already pay crushing school taxes, they figure might as well send them to public schools since they're being extorted anyway.

Well, if a kidnapper steals my child I don't pay the ransom and contract them as a babysitter for future services. Homeschooling ones children can be done around a work schedule if the parents realize the importance to both the child's and their own future. Many feel inept because of misinformation put forth about homeschooling often by those with a vested interest in perpetuating government control. Many are also lazy and don't want the burden....

libertybrewcity
07-23-2011, 10:31 AM
You know, if people just homeschool, you don't have to deal with these folks. Government school is pretty useless these days anyway.

Not that I support government schools, but I don't think a lot people are capable at homeschooling. Probably because they attended public schools..

Southron
07-23-2011, 11:14 AM
YI
Not that I support government schools, but I don't think a lot people are capable at homeschooling. Probably because they attended public schools..

IMO, if parents aren't capable of homeschooling, they probably aren't capable of raising children anyway. Many parents let the schools and daycares do the raising as it is.

ProIndividual
07-23-2011, 11:22 AM
Not that I support government schools, but I don't think a lot people are capable at homeschooling. Probably because they attended public schools..

I agree. Homeschooling is no more effecient than everyone growing their own crops and slaughtering their own beef. Thewre will always be someone exceptionally good ad educating children...better than us. The reason we home school at all now is not because we teach better than some genius private teacher who competes with other private teachers for jobs at quality schools run by quality principals...it's because the State largely has a monopoly on schools, the private alternatives cannot effectively compete with the monopoly, and quality drops as price increases.

I'd venture to say that many home schooled kids would return to schools if they were of better quality for the cost for the parents. Right now, with crap quality and high costs, it's no brainer to home school in many cases.

Specialization always occurs in the economy, education as a service is no different. Home schooling isn't a good alternative necessarily, it's just the best alternative right now.

And seeing as how most parents are undereducated as well, surely specialists would be trusted if they could compete and separate from the bad teachers and schools that drive up cost and drive down quality. I want the best education for my child, for the best price.

ProIndividual
07-23-2011, 11:24 AM
IMO, if parents aren't capable of homeschooling, they probably aren't capable of raising children anyway.

Nonsense...why is reading a requirement to raising children? I'm sorry, but the human species seemed to raise a lot of kids before literacy became widespread. Being educated, or even really smart, has very little to do with being a good parent. It's not about instilling lesson plans, it's about instilling a moral code, a set of ethics, and a sense of sympathy, empathy, and remorse. You'll succeed as a parent if your child understands and acts on what is right and what is wrong (and survives to adulthood, of course), not if they can read Shakespeare.



Many parents let the schools and daycares do the raising as it is.

This I agree with you on. This is the result of inflation and the housing bubble largely. Where it now takes 30 years to have 2 working parents to pay off a house loan, it used to take one parent ten years to pay off the same house. Part of this is the housing bubble (elevated prices in housing due to artifically low interest rates), and part of it is do to the inflation we incurred when the government printed money over this same period. Either way, this means more working hours necessary per household, and therefore more babysitter raised children.

It's an option between that, and not reproducing at all for many. If it were up to government, btw, they's deem some Social Darwinist law that people under a certain household income couldn't reproduce.

Southron
07-23-2011, 11:36 AM
Nonsense...why is reading a requirement to raising children? I'm sorry, but the human species seemed to raise a lot of kids before literacy became widespread. Being educated, or even really smart, has very little to do with being a good parent. It's not about instilling lesson plans, it's about instilling a moral code, a set of ethics, and a sense of sympathy, empathy, and remorse. You'll succeed as a parent if your child understands and acts on what is right and what is wrong (and survives to adulthood, of course), not if they can read Shakespeare.

I never said education was about reading or any other government requirement. For the record I would homeschool even with a completely free market.

Napoleon's Shadow
07-23-2011, 11:47 AM
The separation of school and state would solve this problem.

ProIndividual
07-23-2011, 03:41 PM
I never said education was about reading or any other government requirement. For the record I would homeschool even with a completely free market.

Fair enough. I apologize that I inferred that "education" meant reading :)

erowe1
07-23-2011, 03:57 PM
Another win for state controlled religious indoctrination.

Inkblots
07-23-2011, 04:12 PM
I agree. Homeschooling is no more efficient than everyone growing their own crops and slaughtering their own beef. There will always be someone exceptionally good at educating children...better than us.

Division of labor FTW!

ClayTrainor
07-23-2011, 04:56 PM
Without the Department of Education we wouldn't have these kinds of debates. People could just send their kids to schools that have a curriculum they agree with.

↑↑ Winning! ↑↑

YumYum
07-23-2011, 05:03 PM
I don't think most parents today are qualified to teach. Aren't these the same people that everyone on this forum call the "Mundanes", and the "Sheeple"? Better than having parents instruct, we can let the kids learn on youtube. They would be better off.

DrRP08
07-23-2011, 05:09 PM
Another win for state controlled religious indoctrination.

Evolution has nothing to do with religious doctrine, what are you talking about? It would only be religious indoctrination if they were teaching creationism. I only have a problem with this if this applies to private schools as well.

Peace&Freedom
07-23-2011, 05:33 PM
Evolution has nothing to do with religious doctrine, what are you talking about? It would only be religious indoctrination if they were teaching creationism. I only have a problem with this if this applies to private schools as well.

This is the false dichotomy that has long miscast the issue. Origins deals with historical issues that go beyond science in large part, because no human observer was there to see what actually happened, nor can they exactly reproduce those unseen events today. Both evolution and creation thus involve metaphysical assumptions (one example of which is the presumption, or belief, that only a naturalistic approach to phenomena can be 'science').

The Supreme Court has also twice defined secular humanism (the metaphysical framework associated with evolution) as a form of religion. If one honestly concedes there are scientific difficulties with evolution, irrespective of discussing a positive alternative, then one must concede it is reasonable for that information to be discussed when teaching the subject.

Brett85
07-23-2011, 06:09 PM
Evolution has nothing to do with religious doctrine, what are you talking about? It would only be religious indoctrination if they were teaching creationism. I only have a problem with this if this applies to private schools as well.

Evolution is a religious belief. You have to have a great amount of faith to believe that a world this complex could've formed by chance.

DrRP08
07-23-2011, 06:21 PM
Evolution is a religious belief. You have to have a great amount of faith to believe that a world this complex could've formed by chance.

So anything you have faith in is a religious belief? If I have faith that the Yankees are going to win the world series that's a religious belief? You can trust in science without hampering your religious beliefs, they aren't saying Christianity or any other religion is wrong. I went to a private religious high school that received no public funding and they taught us both science and Christianity in two separate classes, because they are separate. You can be a member of any religious or secular group and believe in evolution, only a theist can believe in creationism that's why it shouldn't be taught in public schools.

DrRP08
07-23-2011, 06:25 PM
This is the false dichotomy that has long miscast the issue. Origins deals with historical issues that go beyond science in large part, because no human observer was there to see what actually happened, nor can they exactly reproduce those unseen events today. Both evolution and creation thus involve metaphysical assumptions (one example of which is the presumption, or belief, that only a naturalistic approach to phenomena can be 'science').

No one is saying how everything started (except creationists) only what has happened since. Anyway just because no one was there to see something occur doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from it, you don't need direct witnesses from something to have an idea about it.

KingRobbStark
07-23-2011, 07:25 PM
Instead of fighting a useless fight, read the Bible to your kids.

Southron
07-23-2011, 07:27 PM
Instead of fighting a useless fight, read the Bible to your kids.

....while they are home not attending the government schools. :)

KingRobbStark
07-23-2011, 07:29 PM
No one is saying how everything started (except creationists) only what has happened since. Anyway just because no one was there to see something occur doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from it, you don't need direct witnesses from something to have an idea about it.

One solution is the elimination of state backed schooling, and another is to offer a 5 minute lecture (by the biology teacher) on the creationist perspective of human origins (it shouldn't take that long anyway).

YumYum
07-23-2011, 07:37 PM
One solution is the elimination of state backed schooling, and another is to offer a 5 minute lecture (by the biology teacher) on the creationist perspective of human origins (it shouldn't take that long anyway).

My question is this: Why is that those who oppose the Theory of Evolution, turn to the creation account in Genesis as the only other alternative?

If I was not satisfied with the evidence supporting evolution, and claimed that evolution is "full of holes", why would I turn to some other theory that has as many holes as evolution?

robert68
07-23-2011, 07:53 PM
..

Peace&Freedom
07-23-2011, 08:19 PM
My question is this: Why is that those who oppose the Theory of Evolution, turn to the creation account in Genesis as the only other alternative?

If I was not satisfied with the evidence supporting evolution, and claimed that evolution is "full of holes", why would I turn to some other theory that has as many holes as evolution?

Others DID turn to another alternative, called intelligent design, that was not based on the Genesis account. But the insecurity and intolerance of evolutionists is so intense, that they attacked that theory as much as they have traditional special creation. The problem is the intolerance of religious secularists to the presentation of any alternative, not the alternative theory. They want a monopoly environment, currently provided by the government schools, to indoctrinate children in evolutionary dogma, and nothing else.

Feeding the Abscess
07-23-2011, 08:24 PM
I'm not really going to feel bad here. These losers tried editing Thomas Jefferson out of our country's history.

I say good riddance.

Peace&Freedom
07-23-2011, 08:27 PM
No one is saying how everything started (except creationists) only what has happened since. Anyway just because no one was there to see something occur doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from it, you don't need direct witnesses from something to have an idea about it.

My point is that the conclusions and ideas arrived at about the past are not SCIENTIFIC ones, as they are not based on observation and replication. Evolutionists precisely do try to say how everything started, from naturalistic concepts about the development of organic life, to planet and star formation, etc. Creationists simply take the same data and develop counter-interpretations. Evolutionists only want their interpretations presented in the government schools, and want these non-scientific interpretations to be called "science" to the exclusion of rival approaches to the same data.

Ranger29860
07-23-2011, 08:50 PM
Evolutionists precisely do try to say how everything started, from naturalistic concepts about the development of organic life, to planet and star formation, etc.

There ya go that explains it your willfully ignorant.

Brett85
07-23-2011, 08:56 PM
You can be a member of any religious or secular group and believe in evolution, only a theist can believe in creationism that's why it shouldn't be taught in public schools.

That's what I really don't agree with. If you describe yourself as a Christian who believes in evolution, you're basically saying that an entire book of the Bible is entirely false. If you believe that one book of the Bible is false, how can you claim that the rest of the Bible is somehow truthful? I would think that if one book of the Bible is false, the entire Bible would be false. The book of Genesis clearly states that God created the earth in 6 days. That's explictly written in Genesis. It doesn't say that the earth was created by a big bang that lasted billions of years. The theory of evolution is completely irreconcilable with the Bible.

Peace&Freedom
07-23-2011, 10:34 PM
There ya go that explains it your willfully ignorant.

Belittlement tactics are immature, and don't work anymore. Check historical astronomy books and articles, the naturalistic explanations given for the origin of the universe, star systems, et al are commonly couched with the terms "evolution" or "evolved."

YumYum
07-23-2011, 11:02 PM
That's what I really don't agree with. If you describe yourself as a Christian who believes in evolution, you're basically saying that an entire book of the Bible is entirely false. If you believe that one book of the Bible is false, how can you claim that the rest of the Bible is somehow truthful? I would think that if one book of the Bible is false, the entire Bible would be false. The book of Genesis clearly states that God created the earth in 6 days. That's explictly written in Genesis. It doesn't say that the earth was created by a big bang that lasted billions of years. The theory of evolution is completely irreconcilable with the Bible.

That is not necessarily so. I can believe in Jesus and not take the Creation account literally.

KingRobbStark
07-24-2011, 12:29 AM
That is not necessarily so. I can believe in Jesus and not take the Creation account literally.

Good point.

kpitcher
07-24-2011, 02:17 AM
If non-science is taught and time given to religious beliefs like creationism, ID, etc it'd take forever for the kids to hear a single fact. There are a few hundred recognized religions in the US to take into account. We'd have kids hearing the Scientologist story of Xenu, As some district courts have found Rastafarian as a recognized religion that could be an entertaining discussion.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 07:23 AM
Evolution has nothing to do with religious doctrine, what are you talking about? It would only be religious indoctrination if they were teaching creationism. I only have a problem with this if this applies to private schools as well.

The question of whether or not the world came about through supernatural means is a religious question. Whether you answer it in the negative or the affirmative, your answer is a religious one.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 07:25 AM
I went to a private religious high school that received no public funding and they taught us both science and Christianity in two separate classes, because they are separate.

The claim that science and religious are separate is another religious doctrine your school indoctrinated you with. See how effective they were?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 08:39 AM
That is not necessarily so. I can believe in Jesus and not take the Creation account literally.

No, I don't think so. It you don't take the creation account literally, then you would have death before sin. But the Bible says death came when Adam sinned, and before Adam there was no death.

So either you take God at His word or you believe the lie of evolution. There is no mixing the two. The two are mutually exclusive.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 08:53 AM
No, I don't think so. It you don't take the creation account literally, then you would have death before sin. But the Bible says death came when Adam sinned, and before Adam there was no death.

So either you take God at His word or you believe the lie of evolution. There is no mixing the two. The two are mutually exclusive.

Did the animals die?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 09:06 AM
Did the animals die?

No. Genesis 3:14 is the first indication that animals would have a life span that ended.

amy31416
07-24-2011, 09:11 AM
So either you take God at His word or you believe the lie of evolution. There is no mixing the two. The two are mutually exclusive.

You don't know squat about evolution.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 09:12 AM
No. Genesis 3:14 is the first indication that animals would have a life span that ended.

So, prior to the curse at Genesis 3;14, everything that God created (including insects), did not die?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 09:31 AM
So, prior to the curse at Genesis 3;14, everything that God created (including insects), did not die?

Everything that lived didn't die, that's right. Now if you want to say that plants "died" when Adam ate them, fine. But I don't think that plants are "alive" in the sense that the Bible is talking about.

But the overriding point is: "If death existed before Adam, then death is not the penalty for sin. How, then, did Christ's death pay the penalty for our sin? If death is not tied to Adam’s sin, then life is not tied to Christ’s death and resurrection, and the Christian faith is all in vain."

PaulConventionWV
07-24-2011, 09:33 AM
Evolution has nothing to do with religious doctrine, what are you talking about? It would only be religious indoctrination if they were teaching creationism. I only have a problem with this if this applies to private schools as well.

I wonder how many people on these forums are against creationism being taught in schools because it is "religious indoctrination" and yet, don't realize that the state already does that. It would be naive not to think so, never mind the fact that evolution is not science. That's just another part of the indoctrination we receive. Evolution=factual and creationism=religion.

Does anyone here really think that the government can have the federal reserve and widespread control over everything, including our schools and the economy, and yet everything that's taught within the school is pure and good "science"? Give me a break.

I think we need separation of school and state for the same reason we need separation of church and state--to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. It makes sense that they would do it in the name of "science."

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 09:36 AM
You don't know squat about evolution.

How much do I need to know of it that it contradicts God's word? We have different final authorities. God's word, and the good and necessary deductions from His word, is my standard for knowledge.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 09:39 AM
I think we need separation of school and state for the same reason we need separation of church and state--to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. It makes sense that they would do it in the name of "science."


Yes. The public schools are the churches of Darwinism where the only established religion in our country is preached. And we all are forced to tithe to this church.

PaulConventionWV
07-24-2011, 09:39 AM
No one is saying how everything started (except creationists) only what has happened since. Anyway just because no one was there to see something occur doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from it, you don't need direct witnesses from something to have an idea about it.

Actually, they do have origins in school. They teach about the "primordial ooze" and the big bang theory. How is that not origins? Beside, I don't think there is really any difference between life from non-life and evolution. They both incur the same scientific problems.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 09:48 AM
Everything that lived didn't die, that's right. Now if you want to say that plants "died" when Adam ate them, fine. But I don't think that plants are "alive" in the sense that the Bible is talking about.

But the overriding point is: "If death existed before Adam, then death is not the penalty for sin. How, then, did Christ's death pay the penalty for our sin? If death is not tied to Adam’s sin, then life is not tied to Christ’s death and resurrection, and the Christian faith is all in vain."

I understand your point about Adam sinned and we need Christ blood, but I want to focus on what you said.

You are saying that all the insects prior to the curse at 3:14 did not die. That would include ticks, chiggers, mosquitoes and flies. Think of all those flies. Animals that eat insects, like frogs and birds would have killed the insects when they ate them. How do you explain that?

amy31416
07-24-2011, 09:53 AM
How much do I need to know of it that it contradicts God's word? We have different final authorities. God's word, and the good and necessary deductions from His word, is my standard for knowledge.

Exactly. You don't know squat about it. So perhaps you should keep your mouth shut about it, as I do when it comes to Christian theology--that ever occur to you? Respect goes both ways here chum. You are no more an authority on absolute truth than any other human being, and your lack of humility does not come off as confidence in your knowledge, but foolishness in making sweeping declarations about things which you know nothing about.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 10:04 AM
I understand your point about Adam sinned and we need Christ blood, but I want to focus on what you said.

You are saying that all the insects prior to the curse at 3:14 did not die. That would include ticks, chiggers, mosquitoes and flies. Think of all those flies. Animals that eat insects, like frogs and birds would have killed the insects when they ate them. How do you explain that?

In my thinking, since God called only humans and animals aboard the ark, only humans and animals were in mind when God gave the death sentence to us for sin. So insects and plants would not have fallen under that category. Remember, God destroyed "every living thing" in the flood.

But I am completely open to another interpretation if one can deduce it from the Scriptures.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 10:09 AM
Exactly. You don't know squat about it. So perhaps you should keep your mouth shut about it, as I do when it comes to Christian theology--that ever occur to you? Respect goes both ways here chum. You are no more an authority on absolute truth than any other human being, and your lack of humility does not come off as confidence in your knowledge, but foolishness in making sweeping declarations about things which you know nothing about.

I thought I just said that I wasn't the authority for truth....

YumYum
07-24-2011, 10:18 AM
In my thinking, since God called only humans and animals aboard the ark, only humans and animals were in mind when God gave the death sentence to us for sin. So insects and plants would not have fallen under that category. Remember, God destroyed "every living thing" in the flood.

But I am completely open to another interpretation if one can deduce it from the Scriptures.

Did He destroy the insects and the plants in the flood? Did He put two of every "kind(s)" of insects on the ark?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 10:27 AM
Did He destroy the insects and the plants in the flood? Did He put two of every "kind(s)" of insects on the ark?

No, He didn't. I've seen you post this before on this forum and you were wrong about it. He didn't put insects specifically on the ark. He didn't even put two of every animal on the ark. Read the Scriptures bro.

romeno182
07-24-2011, 10:28 AM
separate the ink from the paper in the bible ("holy" books) and you would solve the problem

PaulConventionWV
07-24-2011, 10:29 AM
I understand your point about Adam sinned and we need Christ blood, but I want to focus on what you said.

You are saying that all the insects prior to the curse at 3:14 did not die. That would include ticks, chiggers, mosquitoes and flies. Think of all those flies. Animals that eat insects, like frogs and birds would have killed the insects when they ate them. How do you explain that?

Wait, you don't even know that it happened. You're just making stuff up and asking him to explain it? Come on, I know you're better than that.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 10:36 AM
No, He didn't. I've seen you post this before on this forum and you were wrong about it. He didn't put insects specifically on the ark. He didn't even put two of every animal on the ark. Read the Scriptures bro.

Please, explain what you believe happened at the global flood. What specifically happened to the insects? The scriptures do not talk about the insects, so I would like your view.

If he didn't put any insects on the ark, how did they survive, given that the scripture says "God destroyed 'every living thing' in the flood"?

Also, please stay focused on this point. I don't want to bet into a semantics debate. I understand that God put "two of every kind, and seven of every clean animal" on the ark, but that is not the subject on my questions. It's the bugs I am concerned about.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 10:38 AM
Wait, you don't even know that it happened. You're just making stuff up and asking him to explain it? Come on, I know you're better than that.

No, he claimed that the bugs didn't die before the curse at Genesis 3:14. He made the claim; go back and read what he said. I just want him to explain further.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 10:39 AM
Please, explain what you believe happened at the global flood. What specifically happened to the insects? The scriptures do not talk about the insects, so I would like your view.

If he didn't put any insects on the ark, how did they survive, given that the scripture says "God destroyed 'every living thing' in the flood"?

Also, please stay focused on this point. I don't want to bet into a semantics debate. I understand that God put "two of every kind, and seven of every clean animal" on the ark, but that is not the subject on my questions. It's the bugs I am concerned about.

What concerns you about bugs?

YumYum
07-24-2011, 10:42 AM
What concerns you about bugs?

1) You claimed that no bugs died before the curse at Genesis 3:14

2) You haven't explained what God did with the bugs at the time of the flood

Please elaborate.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 10:50 AM
No, he claimed that the bugs didn't die before the curse at Genesis 3:14. He made the claim; go back and read what he said. I just want him to explain further.

No, I made the point explicit that since man and animals were only called on the ark that those were the living things God had in mind when He used that language.

Also, I said I am open to any other interpretation that is by good and necessary consequence deduced from the Scriptures.

YumYum, your hatred of God's word will only bring about your destruction. As your friend, I plead for you to make the fear of the Lord the beginning of your thinking. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Without His word, you have no wisdom.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 11:02 AM
No, I made the point explicit that since man and animals were only called on the ark that those were the living things God had in mind when He used that language.

Also, I said I am open to any other interpretation that is by good and necessary consequence deduced from the Scriptures.

YumYum, your hatred of God's word will only bring about your destruction. As your friend, I plead for you to make the fear of the Lord the beginning of your thinking. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Without His word, you have no wisdom.

Please, let's not go in "judgey" mode and attack me with ad hominems. I am not attacking you. I am asking your view on what happened to the bugs.

Here is what I asked you:


So, prior to the curse at Genesis 3;14, everything that God created (including insects), did not die?

And this was your response:


Everything that lived didn't die, that's right. Now if you want to say that plants "died" when Adam ate them, fine. But I don't think that plants are "alive" in the sense that the Bible is talking about.

You said it, and I would like you to explain yourself further. Surely, you have thought this through before I raised these questions? If you don't have an answer, just admit you don't know, instead of making the claim that "Everything that lived didn't die, that's right."

People who are hungering and thirsting for the truth are waiting for your response on these weighty matters.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 11:03 AM
YumYum, your hatred of God's word will only bring about your destruction. As your friend, I plead for you to make the fear of the Lord the beginning of your thinking. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Without His word, you have no wisdom.

Pompous statement of the year award right there... If you think self righteous garbage like that is going to win you converts, good luck to you.

Bottom line: IF we're going to HAVE public schools, The Bible and it's contents should be taught only in Literature or History classes, if taught at all. There is NO science in the bible. Even if you believe every word of it (and I hope you don't, it's a pretty vile book at times), there is no science. Even if you believe the world was created exactly as described in Genesis, merely recounting an event is not science, and therefore does not belong in a science class.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 11:09 AM
Please, let's not go in "judgey" mode and attack me with ad hominems. I am not attacking you. I am asking your view on what happened to the bugs.

Here is what I asked you:



And this was your response:



You said it, and I would like you to explain yourself further. Surely, you have thought this through before I raised these questions? If you don't have an answer, just admit you don't know, instead of making the claim that "Everything that lived didn't die, that's right."

People who are hungering and thirsting for the truth are waiting for your response on these weighty matters.

YumYum, I only specifically talked about plants because that is the usual evolutionist attack line. I figured that you had been reading evolutionist attack pieces, so that is why I specifically talked about plants.

I mean, I didn't talk about dirt either. Is dirt "living"? Some would say that it is. And obviously dirt didn't "die" in the flood, did it? So obviously God had certain things in mind when he called then "living".

Also, I am by no means an authority on interpreting God's Word. I am open to any interpretation that is by good and necessary consequence deduced from His word. Do you gave any?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 11:16 AM
Pompous statement of the year award right there... If you think self righteous garbage like that is going to win you converts, good luck to you.

Bottom line: IF we're going to HAVE public schools, The Bible and it's contents should be taught only in Literature or History classes, if taught at all. There is NO science in the bible. Even if you believe every word of it (and I hope you don't, it's a pretty vile book at times), there is no science. Even if you believe the world was created exactly as described in Genesis, merely recounting an event is not science, and therefore does not belong in a science class.

Converts? No, the statement alone won't win converts. Only people who have ears to hear and eyes to see will be converted by that statement. It takes the grace of God to make a convert, not any fancy human language.

It's not self-righteous at all. I proclaim my own unworthiness and insufficiency....its only Christ that I lift up (as unworthy as I am to even attempt it).


The rest of your post is statist garbage which you should be ashamed of even advocating. But as I've said many times on this forum, atheists will throw aside their libertarianism for their love of state-schooling. I wish that I wouldn't have to witness it, but I witness it all the time. Atheists are statists.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 11:22 AM
Converts? No, the statement one won't win converts. Only people who have ears to year and eyes to see will be converted by that statement. It takes the grace of God to make a convert, not any fancy human language.

It's not self-righteous at all. I proclaim my own unworthiness and insufficiency....its only Christ that I lift up (as unworthy as I am to even attempt it).


The rest of your post is statist garbage which you should be ashamed of even advocating. But as I've said many times on this forum, atheists will throw aside their libertarianism for their love of state-schooling. I wish that I wouldn't have to witness it, but I witness it all the time. Atheists are statists.

I actually laughed at the last paragraph.

You clearly didn't read my post. I'm not posting in favor of public schools. Reread my post and feel free to edit yours when you're done.

I said IF we're going to have public schools, you might notice. I'm not saying we should, but we do. And since we have them for now, I think the least we can ask is that science be taught in (gasp!) science classes, and important works of historical fiction be taught in history or literature classes. Even most homeschoolers break up their lessons into subjects like that, no?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 11:28 AM
I actually laughed at the last paragraph.

You clearly didn't read my post. I'm not posting in favor of public schools. Reread my post and feel free to edit yours when you're done.

I said IF we're going to have public schools, you might notice. I'm not saying we should, but we do. And since we have them for now, I think the least we can ask is that science be taught in (gasp!) science classes, and important works of historical fiction be taught in history or literature classes. Even most homeschoolers break up their lessons into subjects like that, no?

State-schools are the churches of Darwinism, which we are all forced to tithe to. They are antithetical to freedom and liberty itself.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson


You need to change your worldview to one of liberty.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 11:33 AM
No, I don't think so. It you don't take the creation account literally, then you would have death before sin. But the Bible says death came when Adam sinned, and before Adam there was no death.

So either you take God at His word or you believe the lie of evolution. There is no mixing the two. The two are mutually exclusive.

Actually the bible has been translated, changed, and censored throughout history. It is impossible to "take god at his word"

How can you be sure that the Bible you know is the untarnished word of god and not some version filtered over thousands of years by a corrupt Catholic Church.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 11:35 AM
Actually the bible has been translated, changed, and censored throughout history. It is impossible to "take god at his word"

How can you be sure that the Bible you know is the untarnished word of god and not some version filtered over thousands of years by a corrupt Catholic Church.

I don't take the corrupt Catholic Church's word for anything.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 11:37 AM
State-schools are the churches of Darwinism, which we are all forced to tithe to. They are antithetical to freedom and liberty itself.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson


You need to change your worldview to one of liberty.

Again, you didn't read my post. I don't advocate public schools. I think your high-horse is getting exhausted.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 11:37 AM
YumYum, I only specifically talked about plants because that is the usual evolutionist attack line. I figured that you had been reading evolutionist attack pieces, so that is why I specifically talked about plants.

I mean, I didn't talk about dirt either. Is dirt "living"? Some would say that it is. And obviously dirt didn't "die" in the flood, did it? So obviously God had certain things in mind when he called then "living".

Also, I am by no means an authority on interpreting God's Word. I am open to any interpretation that is by good and necessary consequence deduced from His word. Do you gave any?

If you are by no means "an authority on interpreting God's word", how can you say to me "Without His word, you have no wisdom." If you can't correctly interpret the Bible, how can you use it as a measuring stick to claim that "I have no wisdom"?

First of all, I am not running to an atheist web page between posts, and I don't need to run to "evolutionists attack pieces". You are writing the script here with the comments that you have made.

I am not talking about the "dirt", or the "plants". I am talking about the "bugs", which are "living". You can't compare "dirt" with "bugs". I would like to know what happened to the plants during the global flood, but that is not my immediate focus. I asked you to explain further about the bugs not dying before the curse at Genesis 3:14.

I want your view on the bugs, because even though the scriptures do not mention them, you have claimed that Christians have knowledge, not from science, but from "deductive reasoning". I would like your view (your opinion), using your deductive reasoning, on what happened to the bugs.

You have debated on this forum with evolutionists about biology and about animals and man. You have clearly established yourself as having authority on such subjects, by authority of the scriptures. You don't believe "science" provides the answers, only God's word. Surely, you have an opinion about the "bugs", which are a much lower form of life. You have debated with evolutionists about higher life forms; man and animals. What about the bugs?

erowe1
07-24-2011, 11:39 AM
Actually the bible has been translated, changed, and censored throughout history. It is impossible to "take god at his word"

How can you be sure that the Bible you know is the untarnished word of god and not some version filtered over thousands of years by a corrupt Catholic Church.

One way would be by checking manuscripts from before there was a Catholic Church.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 11:40 AM
One way would be by checking manuscripts from before there was a Catholic Church.

And hope that the catholic church didn't burn them of course.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 11:41 AM
One way would be by checking manuscripts from before there was a Catholic Church.

Most of which are different from one another in significant ways.

Divinely inspired differences, of course.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 11:43 AM
Most of which are different from one another in significant ways.


Maybe we have different ideas about when textual variants are significant. But when I look at them the differences almost always strike me as pretty insignificant.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 11:45 AM
And hope that the catholic church didn't burn them of course.

Well, since we have some, it would stand to reason that the ones we have weren't burned by the Catholic Church. Right?

Also, I see you switched between saying "Catholic" and "catholic." Which do you mean? It makes a big difference to me.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 11:45 AM
One way would be by checking manuscripts from before there was a Catholic Church.

You bring up a good point. We don't have the original manuscripts; only copies.

Why do Protestant Bibles include spurious scriptures in their text, when it is obvious that these spurious scriptures were interpolations that were added at a later date?

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" is a spurious scripture. Jesus may not have said this.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 11:48 AM
If you are by no means "an authority on interpreting God's word", how can you say to me "Without His word, you have no wisdom." If you can't correctly interpret the Bible, how can you use it as a measuring stick to claim that "I have no wisdom"?

First of all, I am not running to an atheist web page between posts, and I don't need to run to "evolutionists attack pieces". You are writing the script here with the comments that you have made.

I am not talking about the "dirt", or the "plants". I am talking about the "bugs", which are "living". You can't compare "dirt" with "bugs". I would like to know what happened to the plants during the global flood, but that is not my immediate focus. I asked you to explain further about the bugs not dying before the curse at Genesis 3:14.

I want your view on the bugs, because even though the scriptures do not mention them, you have claimed that Christians have knowledge, not from science, but from "deductive reasoning". I would like your view (your opinion), using your deductive reasoning, on what happened to the bugs.

You have debated on this forum with evolutionists about biology and about animals and man. You have clearly established yourself as having authority on such subjects, by authority of the scriptures. You don't believe "science" provides the answers, only God's word. Surely, you have an opinion about the "bugs", which are a much lower form of life. You have debated with evolutionists about higher life forms; man and animals. What about the bugs?

I think you and I both know that you are ignoring my posts now. Do I have to say it for the 4th time? Since only animals and man were aboard the ark, that is what I think that God meant by "living things".

Now if someone can by good and necessary consequence show me that insects were "living things" according to God's Word, then I will gladly change my mind and submit my mind to the mind of Christ. Can you show me that from Scripture? If not, why are we even debating?

As for the flood, insects can survive floods. So that is why I don't think that God destroyed insects in the flood, just like He didn't destroy dirt, or bacteria, or other so-called "living" things. Again, this is not certain on my part. I wasn't there so I dont know. If someone can show me otherwise from the Scriptures, I will gladly change my thinking here.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 11:53 AM
You bring up a good point. We don't have the original manuscripts; only copies.

Why do Protestant Bibles include spurious scriptures in their text, when it is obvious that these spurious scriptures were interpolations that were added at a later date?

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" is a spurious scripture. Jesus may not have said this.

I'm not sure which Bibles you mean when you say "Protestant Bibles." But almost all Protestant Bibles I know of that were produced in the modern age in which many scholars have concluded that that passage is spurious have a footnote there saying that.

I assume that the reasons they put that footnote there, rather than eliminate the passage, are: 1) It's not an open-and-shut case. And 2) There is a great deal of tradition around that passage as one of Jesus' so-called 7 last words. Granted this is a bigger factor for Catholics, but it's also there for many Protestants.

Note also that almost every modern translation is sold for a profit for those who hold the copyright for it. So they have an incentive to provide their consumers with the product they want. Including more rather than less suits that purpose.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 12:00 PM
I think you and I both know that you are ignoring my posts now. Do I have to say it for the 4th time? Since only animals and man were aboard the ark, that is what I think that God meant by "living things".

Now if someone can by good and necessary consequence show me that insects were "living things" according to God's Word, then I will gladly change my mind and submit my mind to the mind of Christ. Can you show me that from Scripture? If not, why are we even debating?

As for the flood, insects can survive floods. So that is why I don't think that God destroyed insects in the flood, just like He didn't destroy dirt, or bacteria, it other so-called "living" things. Again, this is not certain on my part. I wasn't there so I dont know. If someone can show me otherwise from the Scriptures, I will gladly change my thinking here.

Bugs were created by God. The are living things. You don't need an evolutionist to confirm that. They are part of the food chain. Think about this: if the honey bees were to disappear, mankind would die out. That is a fact, so bugs play a very important part of our eco-system. Bugs are not insignificant.

How do bugs survive floods? They can hold their breath. Some bugs make an air bubble and float. Is this what happened at the flood. How long can bugs stay in an air bubble, floating on water, without food and fresh air? What evidence have you examined that can explain your position?


Again, this is not certain on my part. I wasn't there so I don't know.

Your admission here has opened Pandora's Box. By making this claim, if you weren't there when it happened, you can't be sure what happened. That includes creation of man and animals and bugs, the global flood, even the resurrection of Jesus, which the gospels themselves give different accounts as to what happened.

I appreciate your honesty here. Admitting that you don't know because you weren't there is the beginning of deductive reasoning.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 12:07 PM
Bugs were created by God. The are living things. You don't need an evolutionist to confirm that. They are part of the food chain. Think about this: if the honey bees were to disappear, mankind would die out. That is a fact, so bugs play a very important part of our eco-system. Bugs are not insignificant.

How do bugs survive floods? They can hold their breath. Some bugs make an air bubble and float. Is this what happened at the flood. How long can bugs stay in an air bubble, floating on water, without food and fresh air? What evidence have you examined that can explain your position?



Your admission here has opened Pandora's Box. By making this claim, if you weren't there when it happened, you can't be sure what happened. That includes creation of man and animals and bugs, the global flood, even the resurrection of Jesus, which the gospels themselves give different accounts as to what happened.

I appreciate your honesty here. Admitting that you don't know because you weren't there is the beginning of deductive reasoning.

Well, the beginning of deductive reasoning is to have an axiom by which you deduce from. My fear in reading your posts YumYum, is that you don't start with the axiom that "Scripture alone is the word of God". Your axiom is your own sinful autonomous reason, which is why you think it is virtuous to attempt to twist the Scriptures instead of harmonize them.


But yeah, insects floating on vegetation or dead carcasses could survive floods.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 12:07 PM
On the note of the Great Flood, there are flood stories from people all over Mesopotamia, and some classical historians speculate that there indeed was a great flood thousands of years ago.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 12:10 PM
On the note of the Great Flood, there are flood stories from people all over Mesopotamia, and some classical historians speculate that there indeed was a great flood thousands of years ago.

Why would that surprise you?

YumYum
07-24-2011, 12:11 PM
I'm not sure which Bibles you mean when you say "Protestant Bibles." But almost all Protestant Bibles I know of that were produced in the modern age in which many scholars have concluded that that passage is spurious have a footnote there saying that.

"Protestation Bibles" contain only the 66 books; not the "Apocrypha books".


I assume that the reasons they put that footnote there, rather than eliminate the passage, are: 1) It's not an open-and-shut case. And 2) There is a great deal of tradition around that passage as one of Jesus' so-called 7 last words. Granted this is a bigger factor for Catholics, but it's also there for many Protestants.

Ok, but the fact that they were added at a later date when the canon was closed would invalidate them as being inspired by God, wouldn't it? It would also support the theory that the books have more than one author. This can be seen in the Gospel of John, where there are two (2) conclusions, not one.


Note also that almost every modern translation is sold for a profit for those who hold the copyright for it. So they have an incentive to provide their consumers with the product they want. Including more rather than less suits that purpose.

What Bible do you recommend that does not have profit as its priority, and omits the spurious scriptures?

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 12:12 PM
The basic scientific axiom is only what which you can observe, and nothing more. Of course, evolution hasn't been solidly proven, but there is a lot of evidence that is consistent with the theory of evolution.

Creationism on the other hand, has about the same level of evidence as the theory that humans were sculpted out of Iron by Zeus

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:12 PM
I appreciate your honesty here. Admitting that you don't know because you weren't there is the beginning of deductive reasoning.

I tend to agree with this. But note that it goes both ways.

People who make the religious assumption that the world came about entirely through the outworking of observable physical laws, without any interference of anything supernatural, and who then combine that assumption with the scientific method, so as to decide what theory of origins best comports with those assumptions and the empirical evidence we have, and then determine that the explanation they arrive at is "science" and another one is "religious," and that those who believe in "science" are wise to conclude that they know what happened when they weren't there, while those who believe "religion" are foolish to believe they know, are kidding themselves.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:13 PM
The basic scientific axiom is only what which you can observe, and nothing more.

Can you observe that axiom?

If not, then it's self-defeating. If so, then it's not an axiom.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:15 PM
Why would that surprise you?

Because the great flood supposedly killed every living thing, yet people lived to write about it.

I think that should surprise YOU.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 12:16 PM
Can you observe that axiom?

If not, then it's self-defeating. If so, then it's not an axiom.

Well, can YOU observe THAT axiom????????

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 12:18 PM
The basic scientific axiom is only what which you can observe, and nothing more.

This is called the fallacy of induction. The scientific method is based on this logical fallacy. It is never valid to say "X is true because I observed it".

It blows me away that I see this fallacy repeated day after day by otherwise seemingly intelligent people. Google it. Read up about induction.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 12:19 PM
Because the great flood supposedly killed every living thing, yet people lived to write about it.

I think that should surprise YOU.

Use your noggin man. It will come to you:)

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:19 PM
Well, the beginning of deductive reasoning is to have an axiom by which you deduce from. My fear in reading your posts YumYum, is that you don't start with the axiom that "Scripture alone is the word of God". Your axiom is your own sinful autonomous reason, which is why you think it is virtuous to attempt to twist the Scriptures instead of harmonize them.


But yeah, insects floating on vegetation or dead carcasses could survive floods.

Why would you ever begin with THAT axiom? Because the bible tells you to? Do you not see the circular logic there?

"The Bible is divinely inspired and so cannot be questioned. I know this because it says so, and it cannot be questioned."
=
"The government is good and so should not be questioned. I know this because it says so, and should not be questioned."

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:20 PM
Use your noggin man. It will come to you:)

Please, fill in poor old me. I cant figure out how dead people wrote books.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 12:22 PM
This is called the fallacy of induction. The scientific method is based on this logical fallacy. It is never valid to say "X is true because I observed it".

It blows me away that I see this fallacy repeated day after day by otherwise seemingly intelligent people. Google it. Read up about induction.

It's better than your axiom: i read it in this book so it must be true.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 12:22 PM
Why would you ever begin with THAT axiom? Because the bible tells you to? Do you not see the circular logic there?

"The Bible is divinely inspired and so cannot be questioned. I know this because it says so, and it cannot be questioned."
=
"The government is good and so should not be questioned. I know this because it says so, and should not be questioned."


I freely admit my worldview is circular. So is yours and everyone else's:). That is the nature of axiomatic truth.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:23 PM
Ok, but the fact that they were added at a later date when the canon was closed would invalidate them as being inspired by God, wouldn't it? It would also support the theory that the books have more than one author. This can be seen in the Gospel of John, where there are two (2) conclusions, not one.


You're bringing in a lot of assumptions that would take a long time to work through. We might not be on the same page with idea of some date that "the canon was closed." But if you mean some time around A.D. 400, which is what people often mean by that, then I'm pretty sure that the passage you mentioned, and almost every other passage you consider spurious, was already in existence by that time.



What Bible do you recommend that does not have profit as its priority, and omits the spurious scriptures?

I wouldn't pick one. I don't want to give people the impression that they can't trust whatever Bible they have, or that any time they come across something they don't like in it they can just say, "Well, the Bible's been changed so much we don't know if this is really in it anyway."

As I said above, in the big picture I don't consider the textual variants that we know of for the Bible that significant. If any educated lay person, who's good at paying attention to what they read, were to read different English versions of the Bible, no matter how old or modern, no matter how liberal or conservative their translators, whether made for profit or not, and also to read literal translations of any ancient manuscripts you want (and I don't care which ones you pick), then they'll come away from that project seeing clearly that what they read were just different translations of the same book that are all very similar to one another. The messages and major ideas they would get from each and every book of the Bible would be virtually identical. Only if you decided to show them comparisons of certain passages that you had cherry picked in order to highlight differences would you be able to make them think that the differences are that significant.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:24 PM
I freely admit my worldview is circular. So is yours and everyone else's:). That is the nature of axiomatic truth.

So, what made you choose that axiom? Do you just fancy the writing style?

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:24 PM
Well, can YOU observe THAT axiom????????

Observe what axiom?

I do have axioms. And it's true that I can't observe them. But I also don't claim that only things that I can observe can be true. It's only people who claim that who run into the contradiction I mentioned.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 12:24 PM
Well, the beginning of deductive reasoning is to have an axiom by which you deduce from. My fear in reading your posts YumYum, is that you don't start with the axiom that "Scripture alone is the word of God". Your axiom is your own sinful autonomous reason, which is why you think it is virtuous to attempt to twist the Scriptures instead of harmonize them.


But yeah, insects floating on vegetation or dead carcasses could survive floods.

You are getting off track here. You keep attacking me instead of answering the questions I have about the bugs.

So, the only answer you have is "But yeah, insects floating on vegetation or dead carcasses could survive floods."?

That is such a glib answer coming from someone who has denounced the "so-called experts" with PhD's in their respective fields of biology, and paleontology, and physics for that matter. You treat bugs as insignificant, and clearly they are not.

Can we turn to a "bug expert" to get his view on how the millions of varieties of bugs could have survived a global flood; floating on water for almost a year, without food and fresh air?

Have you talked to a bug expert about this? I assume you haven't. If his explanation didn't agree with your conclusions, would you claim he is "wrong"?

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:29 PM
Please, fill in poor old me. I cant figure out how dead people wrote books.

Where did you get the ideas you have about the Great Flood?

Slutter McGee
07-24-2011, 12:29 PM
Yay for actual Science.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

YumYum
07-24-2011, 12:34 PM
You're bringing in a lot of assumptions that would take a long time to work through. We might not be on the same page with idea of some date that "the canon was closed." But if you mean some time around A.D. 400, which is what people often mean by that, then I'm pretty sure that the passage you mentioned, and almost every other passage you consider spurious, was already in existence by that time.



I wouldn't pick one. I don't want to give people the impression that they can't trust whatever Bible they have, or that any time they come across something they don't like in it they can just say, "Well, the Bible's been changed so much we don't know if this is really in it anyway."

As I said above, in the big picture I don't consider the textual variants that we know of for the Bible that significant. If any educated lay person, who's good at paying attention to what they read, were to read different English versions of the Bible, no matter how old or modern, no matter how liberal or conservative their translators, whether made for profit or not, and also to read literal translations of any ancient manuscripts you want (and I don't care which ones you pick), then they'll come away from that project seeing clearly that what they read were just different translations of the same book that are all very similar to one another. The messages and major ideas they would get from each and every book of the Bible would be virtually identical. Only if you decided to show them comparisons of certain passages that you had cherry picked in order to highlight differences would you be able to make them think that the differences are that significant.

It is interesting that you pick the date 400 A.D. as the year that the canon was closed. That is the year that we got Jerrome's Vulgate (The Latin Vulgate), which was given to us by the Catholics. Are you saying that God used the Catholics to give us His word?

Also, are you saying that God was behind the interpolations (scriptures added at a later date) that we find in the New Testament?

Does God approve of King James adding 1600 years later at 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."?

By what authority did King James have to do this?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:35 PM
Where did you get the ideas you have about the Great Flood?

I don't understand your question.

It was posted before that other sources had written about a flood in Mesopotamia. Aqua asked why this is surprising, and I said it was because the biblical flood supposedly killed everyone on earth, so how could anyone have written about it?

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:37 PM
the biblical flood supposedly killed everyone on earth

Where did you hear that?

YumYum
07-24-2011, 12:43 PM
I tend to agree with this. But note that it goes both ways.

People who make the religious assumption that the world came about entirely through the outworking of observable physical laws, without any interference of anything supernatural, and who then combine that assumption with the scientific method, so as to decide what theory of origins best comports with those assumptions and the empirical evidence we have, and then determine that the explanation they arrive at is "science" and another one is "religious," and that those who believe in "science" are wise to conclude that they know what happened when they weren't there, while those who believe "religion" are foolish to believe they know, are kidding themselves.

Good point, and I would hope that "science" and "spiritual" people can come together to work on these issues, instead of fighting and working against each other. While I don't believe everything in the Bible to be literal, in my opinion, all these stories didn't just appear out of nowhere. I feel that there is some basis for them. Even NASA has come to that conclusion, even though their research has not been able to prove any of the stories in The Old Testament.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 12:44 PM
So, what made you choose that axiom? Do you just fancy the writing style?

You don't choose truth. You either believe it or you don't.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:44 PM
It is interesting that you pick the date 400 A.D. as the year that the canon was closed. That is the year that we got Jerrome's Vulgate (The Latin Vulgate), which was given to us by the Catholics. Are you saying that God used the Catholics to give us His word?

Also, are you saying that God was behind the interpolations (scriptures added at a later date) that we find in the New Testament?

Does God approve of King James adding 1600 years later at 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."?

By what authority did King James have to do this?

I tried to be cautious in the way I worded what I said to avoid any commitment to a date that the canon was closed. I said "around 400," because that's kind of a typical date you come across in discussions of the canon, based on a combination of factors that some consider important, including the major codices (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus) that were from near that time, and the first written lists we have of the books of the New Testament, in the council of Carthage (IIRC), and the Festal Letter of Athanasius. But again, that's the way the story about the canon is usually told, and I didn't really want to get into a debate about it. I don't really look at it the same way.

I'm also trying to be careful about what I don't say. I didn't say anything one way or another about God adding interpolations. I consider that something that's within the realm of possibility, and I can see why some would either believe that or not. As I hope I made clear above, I really don't think it would make as big of a difference as some would have you believe whether you accept the so-called interpolations or reject them.

The passage you mention wasn't added by King James. It was in existence long before that in the Latin Vulgate, and had been included even in Greek editions of the New Testament before the King James Version was made. It's in that version because it was in the Greek edition they based it on.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:46 PM
Where did you hear that?

Genesis 7:1-23

If the flood killed everything not in the ark, how did other people observe and write about a flood?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:47 PM
You don't choose truth. You either believe it or you don't.

How do you know it's true? You're avoiding the question.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 12:48 PM
Where did you hear that?

Genesis 7:21-23:


21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

AB can't answer me about what happened to the bugs during the global flood. What is your view on this? What do you think happened to them?

Echoes
07-24-2011, 12:48 PM
Atheism and Statism go hand in hand, it's no coincidence almost all communists are atheists, they merely replace God with the almighty State. There are exceptions of course, but they are a tiny minority.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:49 PM
Genesis 7:1-23

If the flood killed everything not in the ark, how did other people observe and write about a flood?

Earlier you said it supposedly killed everyone. Now that you checked the Bible you realized that it didn't kill those in the ark. As the story in the Bible goes, every member of the human race now in existence is descended from those 8 people. This would necessarily include those who passed down the flood stories you referred to above.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:50 PM
Atheism and Statism go hand in hand, it's no coincidence almost all communists are atheists, they merely replace God with the almighty State. There are exceptions of course, but they are a tiny minority.

Blind faith and statism go hand in hand. Faith in god or state, both are equally dangerous.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:52 PM
Genesis 7:21-23:



AB can't answer me about what happened to the bugs during the global flood. What is your view on this? What do you think happened to them?

I'm not completely sure. And I reserve my right to change my mind. But I notice that the phrase "people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds" doesn't necessarily include bugs.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 12:52 PM
Genesis 7:21-23:



AB can't answer me about what happened to the bugs during the global flood. What is your view on this? What do you think happened to them?

Why would you say that? Anyone can read this thread and see what I said about bugs (that they survived by floating on carcasses or vegetation). Why would you type that when people can simply read this thread? That is perplexing to me....:(

robert68
07-24-2011, 12:52 PM
Theocracy and quasi theocracy are statism.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:53 PM
Earlier you said it supposedly killed everyone. Now that you checked the Bible you realized that it didn't kill those in the ark. As the story in the Bible goes, every member of the human race now in existence is descended from those 8 people. This would necessarily include those who passed down the flood stories you referred to above.

I said supposedly because the bible is a work of historical fiction.

As you said, only 8 people witnessed the flood and lived. Why, then, are there people writing as witnesses to a flood in mesopotamia around that time?

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:54 PM
Theocracy and quasi theocracy is statism.

Not necessarily. You can be a theocrat and not a statist.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:55 PM
I said supposedly because the bible is a work of historical fiction.

As you said, only 8 people witnessed the flood and lived. Why, then, are there people writing as witnesses to a flood in mesopotamia around that time?

There aren't "people writing as witnesses to a flood in mesopotamia around that time." There are flood stories around the world, not just in Mesopotamia, that tell about a flood that happened long ago, that have been passed down orally through generations since ancient times, and that we know from written forms of those accounts that were made in places and times when the stories were already about something from the distant past. But there aren't any accounts written by eye witnesses.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 12:56 PM
Blind faith and statism go hand in hand. Faith in god or state, both are equally dangerous.

Faith in God precludes faith in the State. You need to revaluate your thinking here.

Look at the history of this country. Why do you think the founding generation's war cry was "no king but king Jesus"? Why do you think they said that other than the fact that faith in God precludes faith in the State?

robert68
07-24-2011, 12:57 PM
Not necessarily. You can be a theocrat and not a statist.

How so?

Echoes
07-24-2011, 12:58 PM
Blind faith and statism go hand in hand. Faith in god or state, both are equally dangerous.

Says the atheist defending the State indoctrination mills (aka public schools). Save your energy, real libertarians can spot the posers.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 12:59 PM
How so.

Well, if being a theocrat means you advocate society ruled by the law of a god, and if you understand the law of that god to be something that excludes ruling over others by conquest, which is what a state is, then you would be a theocrat and not a statist.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 12:59 PM
Faith in God precludes faith in the State. You need to revaluate your thinking here.

Look at the history of this country. Why do you think the founding generation's war cry was "no king but king Jesus"? Why do you think they said that other than the fact that faith in God precludes faith in the State?

I said faith in god OR state. This is the 3rd time you've failed to comprehend my posts, I didn't realize I was such a poor writer.
Communism, like many forms of government before it, involves blind faith in the state.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 01:01 PM
Says the atheist defending the State indoctrination mills (aka public schools). Save your energy, real libertarians can spot the posers.

Didn't defend public schools, sorry to disappoint. I merely said that we have them. Is admitting that we have troops in Iraq a means of supporting our troop presence in Iraq?
Your logic is pretty spotty here.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 01:01 PM
I said faith in god OR state. This is the 3rd time you've failed to comprehend my posts, I didn't realize I was such a poor writer.
Communism, like many forms of government before it, involves blind faith in the state.

When you say "blind faith" what do you mean by that?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 01:03 PM
When you say "blind faith" what do you mean by that?

Belief with little or no effort to validate independently.

Theocrat
07-24-2011, 01:05 PM
Well, if being a theocrat means you advocate society ruled by the law of a god, and if you understand the law of that god to be something that excludes ruling over others by conquest, which is what a state is, then you would be a theocrat and not a statist.

Though I would disagree with that definition of "state," I agree very much with your distinction between being a theocrat and a statist.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 01:09 PM
The passage you mention wasn't added by King James. It was in existence long before that in the Latin Vulgate, and had been included even in Greek editions of the New Testament before the King James Version was made. It's in that version because it was in the Greek edition they based it on.

Where did he get it from? Why isn't this text in other Bibles?

erowe1
07-24-2011, 01:10 PM
Belief with little or no effort to validate independently.

Do you think it's possible to validate all of your beliefs independently?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 01:12 PM
Though I would disagree with that definition of "state," I agree very much with your distinction between being a theocrat and a statist.

Yes. "Theocracy" (as secularists define it) is more akin to the "Christian socialism" of the social gospel movement of the 20's. But historically, Christianity has rejected statism.

I emphatically say that I am a theocrat. By that I mean that all law and knowledge about economics and life derives from God's Word. This has nothing to do with statism, in fact it precludes statism.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 01:16 PM
Why would you say that? Anyone can read this thread and see what I said about bugs (that they survived by floating on carcasses or vegetation). Why would you type that when people can simply read this thread? That is perplexing to me....:(

So, your conclusion is that the bugs floated for almost a year on dead carcasses, and in air bubbles?

I am going to check with an entomologist (bug expert) at the University to see if this is possible. Will you accept his professional, educated opinion?

erowe1
07-24-2011, 01:17 PM
Where did he get it from? Why isn't this text in other Bibles?

I've studied that exact question before. The data is out there. Lots of books on the textual criticism of the New Testament talk about that passage and include detailed discussions of how it came to be accepted by Erasmus to be included in the Greek edition of the New Testament that he made in the early 1500's, and that went on to be very influential on future Greek editions of the New Testament, as well as Protestant translations, such as the King James in 1611.

The passage was always controversial, and Erasmus himself considered it spurious. But it was really only later that textual criticism developed to a point that made many scholars think it was time to fiddle with the text of the Bibles people were using in the pew. So I don't think any English translations excluded that prior to the Revised Version, some time around 1900. And after that, almost all English Bibles have excluded that passage. The ones that don't, such as the New King James, are made with a deliberate philosophy of following the traditional text.

Edit: I love wikipedia. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 01:21 PM
Do you think it's possible to validate all of your beliefs independently?

In theory, yes, and in practice, mostly. The key is that the belief has a way TO be verified. The opposite would be a belief REQUIRES that cannot be verified or changed, such in the case of the bible (where those who question it go to hell or should be killed, depending on the book) or communist/dictatorial state.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 01:22 PM
So, your conclusion is that the bugs floated for almost a year on dead carcasses, and in air bubbles?

I am going to check with an entomologist (bug expert) at the University to see if this is possible. Will you accept his professional, educated opinion?

Air bubbles? I never said that. Why the intentional misrepresentation?

I would consider his opinion, yes. But I would only consider it if it is in accord with God's Word. If it can be shown from Scripture, then I will accept it. I have said this 5 times now in this thread. The Scriptures are the authority for truth. I will take the "evidence" as I see it and understand it in light of God's Word, which is what he wants me and you to do YumYum.

I guess the other question is: why would you accept as truth the opinion of someone who rejects God's Word? That is a question you will have to ask yourself YumYum.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 01:26 PM
In theory, yes, and in practice, mostly. The key is that the belief has a way TO be verified. The opposite would be a belief REQUIRES that cannot be verified or changed, such in the case of the bible (where those who question it go to hell or should be killed, depending on the book) or communist/dictatorial state.

I don't think it's possible even in theory.

For example, take your sentence, "The key is that the belief has a way TO be verified." The notion that there exist ways to verify beliefs is itself a belief that can't be verified without begging the question. But that notion undergirds everything you have said about this.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 01:27 PM
I guess the other question is: why would you accept as truth the opinion of someone who rejects God's Word? That is a question you will have to ask yourself YumYum.

Why WOULDN'T we accept the professional opinion of someone well versed and read on the subject simply because he doesn't accept the historical fiction of centuries past? I think that question is more valid, honestly.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 01:31 PM
I would consider his opinion, yes. But I would only consider it if it is in accord with God's Word. If it can be shown from Scripture, then I will accept it. I have said this 5 times now in this thread. The Scriptures are the authority for truth. I will take the "evidence" as I see it and understand it in light of God's Word, which is what he wants me and you to do YumYum.

I guess the other question is: why would you accept as truth the opinion of someone who rejects God's Word? That is a question you will have to ask yourself YumYum.

Wait a second! You yourself said that God's word made no mention of the bugs, so, how can you make a judgement call on the professional opinion of an entomologist when the scriptures are silent on the subject? How would anything he says contradict the scriptures when the scriptures do not discuss what happened to the bugs?

How would you use the scriptures to support your claims, if his answer is: "No. It would be impossible for a significant majority of insects to float around on dead carcasses and in air bubbles and survive."?

What do you know about bugs that he doesn't know (assuming that he disagrees with your theory)?

erowe1
07-24-2011, 01:33 PM
Why WOULDN'T we accept the professional opinion of someone well versed and read on the subject simply because he doesn't accept the historical fiction of centuries past? I think that question is more valid, honestly.

One reason might be that said person's expertise does not extend to important epistemological questions that provide the foundation for everything else they say about origins. This happens any time they pretend that their theories do not depend on any religious convictions.

robert68
07-24-2011, 01:36 PM
Well, if being a theocrat means you advocate society ruled by the law of a god, and if you understand the law of that god to be something that excludes ruling over others by conquest, which is what a state is, then you would be a theocrat and not a statist.

Cite an anarchist who advocates society “ruled by the law of a god”.

As is often stated in this forum, inherent to the state is the existence of a monopoly on violence in a given region. If one is against that, they’re not going to advocate a society “ruled by the law of a god”, which can be defined every which way.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 01:38 PM
Wait a second! You yourself said that God's word made no mention of the bugs, so, how can you make a judgement call on the professional opinion of an entomologist when the scriptures are silent on the subject? How would anything he says contradict the scriptures when the scriptures do not discuss what happened to the bugs?

How would you use the scriptures to support your claims, if his answer is: "No. It would be impossible for a significant majority of insects to float around on dead carcasses and in air bubbles and survive."?

What do you know about bugs that he doesn't know (assuming that he disagrees with your theory)?

I already said I would examine any theory in light of God's Word, including any entemologist you know of.

That is the standard that any Christian must use in examining the truth or falsity of a claim, whether it is in accord with the Scriptures.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 01:39 PM
I don't think it's possible even in theory.

For example, take your sentence, "The key is that the belief has a way TO be verified." The notion that there exist ways to verify beliefs is itself a belief that can't be verified without begging the question. But that notion undergirds everything you have said about this.

-I believe I may have left the stove on. I can go into the kitchen and check.
-I believe the earth is round. I can use various methods, including comparing shadows at different locations (ALA Aristophanes) and observing the curvature of the earth from a high point to verify (or not) this.
-I believe it is hot enough to fry an egg on the sidewalk. I can crack one open and find out.

Some beliefs I am not skilled enough to verify myself. For such things, I am happy to look at history and tested experiments:
-I believe that a small government and an open market foster economic growth. I can look at historical instances where countries moved towards truly free markets and benefited, and the reverse, to verify this. Economic modeling can also be used to illustrate how.
-I believe that a water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I can read books on chemistry that show me how this was 1st discovered, and then replicate that test if I feel the need. I can also see the results of other tests where the same results were found, but in different ways, and replicate them.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 01:41 PM
-I believe I may have left the stove on. I can go into the kitchen and check.
-I believe the earth is round. I can use various methods, including comparing shadows at different locations (ALA Aristophanes) and observing the curvature of the earth from a high point to verify (or not) this.
-I believe it is hot enough to fry an egg on the sidewalk. I can crack one open and find out.

Some beliefs I am not skilled enough to verify myself. For such things, I am happy to look at history and tested experiments:
-I believe that a small government and an open market foster economic growth. I can look at historical instances where countries moved towards truly free markets and benefited, and the reverse, to verify this. Economic modeling can also be used to illustrate how.
-I believe that a water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I can read books on chemistry that show me how this was 1st discovered, and then replicate that test if I feel the need. I can also see the results of other tests where the same results were found, but in different ways, and replicate them.

Wait a second!

Are your senses infallible?

YumYum
07-24-2011, 01:42 PM
I've studied that exact question before. The data is out there. Lots of books on the textual criticism of the New Testament talk about that passage and include detailed discussions of how it came to be accepted by Erasmus to be included in the Greek edition of the New Testament that he made in the early 1500's, and that went on to be very influential on future Greek editions of the New Testament, as well as Protestant translations, such as the King James in 1611.

The passage was always controversial, and Erasmus himself considered it spurious. But it was really only later that textual criticism developed to a point that made many scholars think it was time to fiddle with the text of the Bibles people were using in the pew. So I don't think any English translations excluded that prior to the Revised Version, some time around 1900. And after that, almost all English Bibles have excluded that passage. The ones that don't, such as the New King James, are made with a deliberate philosophy of following the traditional text.

Edit: I love wikipedia. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

We should probably discuss 1 John 5:7 in the religion sub-forum. The web page you provided is interesting.

But, I, as a believer in Jesus, see a dilemma here. Fundamentalists claim that we must accept the Bible (both Old Testament, and the New) as being the infallible "Word of God" (even though the Bible says that Jesus is the "Word of God"), and that the Bible is "inspired of God" (even though we are undecided as to what that means), and that we are to accept spurious scriptures that were added later by unknown copyists. Doesn't this make for confusion? And yet, I see people who seem to worship the Bible.

The Bible cannot and does not have an answer for everything. It doesn't say what happened to the bugs during the global flood. The Bible has many contradictions.

The Bible is the reason that we have so many different Christian religions. If the Christians can't depend on the Bible to explain the very nature of "who" God is without disagreement, how can the Bible be trusted to be accurate about the origins of man?

PaulConventionWV
07-24-2011, 01:43 PM
I don't understand your question.

It was posted before that other sources had written about a flood in Mesopotamia. Aqua asked why this is surprising, and I said it was because the biblical flood supposedly killed everyone on earth, so how could anyone have written about it?

My dear Watson, as I recall, there were a few people in that time who had a boat.

Yes, many cultures have stories about a worldwide flood. Cultures from all around the WORLD have these stories. What you didn't mention was that they also had a story about a few people who survived. Is it dawning on you yet who they were referring to?

Theocrat
07-24-2011, 01:47 PM
In theory, yes, and in practice, mostly. The key is that the belief has a way TO be verified. The opposite would be a belief REQUIRES that cannot be verified or changed, such in the case of the bible (where those who question it go to hell or should be killed, depending on the book) or communist/dictatorial state.

How is that which you use to verify a belief itself verified?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 01:48 PM
Wait a second!

Are your senses infallible?

Never said they were. Why do you ask? If our senses are SO fallible that they make me think the stove is on when it isn't, we wouldn't get much done, would we? If they were so fallible we can't measure shadows, we'd have a damn hard time building spaceships, wouldn't we.

Our senses are certainly fallible. That's why extra steps of verification are so important. If senses were INfallible, we'd all be obliged to believe in the Loch Ness monster simple because some number of apparently earnest people have seen it.

I find it highly amusing that you seem to think this might be a "gotcha" moment, when you're the one out there claiming the bible, of ALL things, is in fact infallible. A roughly translated, heavily altered book of what is essentially fantasy is the only physical thing you seem to find infallible.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 01:49 PM
Cite an anarchist who advocates society “ruled by the law of a god”.

As is often stated in this forum, inherent to the state is the existence of a monopoly on violence in a given region. If one is against that, they’re not going to advocate a society “ruled by the law of a god”, which can be defined every which way.

This might come down to how you define "anarchist," which is why I simply said "not a statist." Does Gary North count? What about the book of Judges in the Bible?

I don't follow your last sentence. If one is against a monopoly of violence, then one has a sense of ought. But if one has a sense of ought, then one advocates a society ruled by the law of a god (i.e. an objective standard that defines some things as right and others as wrong). So it would seem that, not only can one be an anarchist and a theocrat, but that it's positively impossible to be an anarchist without being a theocrat.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 01:50 PM
We should probably discuss 1 John 5:7 in the religion sub-forum. The web page you provided is interesting.

But, I, as a believer in Jesus, see a dilemma here. Fundamentalists claim that we must accept the Bible (both Old Testament, and the New) as being the infallible "Word of God" (even though the Bible says that Jesus is the "Word of God"), and that that the Bible is "inspired of God" (even though we are undecided as to what that means), and that we are to accept spurious scriptures that were added later by unknown copyists. And yet, fund

YumYum, all your fighting and slander against the Word of God will only result in your downfall. I tell you this as a friend and fellow forum member: don't fight against the Word. The Word of the Lord is eternal, and will never pass away. The Creator of the universe has revealed Himself to man and man can depend on His Word. The sovereign Lord has made sure that we today have His eternal Word.

You can't "believe in Jesus" if you don't believe in Gods Word. Jesus did not write any of the gospels by hand, YumYum. Holy men of God were carried along by the Spirit to write what He said.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 01:51 PM
-I believe I may have left the stove on. I can go into the kitchen and check.
-I believe the earth is round. I can use various methods, including comparing shadows at different locations (ALA Aristophanes) and observing the curvature of the earth from a high point to verify (or not) this.
-I believe it is hot enough to fry an egg on the sidewalk. I can crack one open and find out.

Some beliefs I am not skilled enough to verify myself. For such things, I am happy to look at history and tested experiments:
-I believe that a small government and an open market foster economic growth. I can look at historical instances where countries moved towards truly free markets and benefited, and the reverse, to verify this. Economic modeling can also be used to illustrate how.
-I believe that a water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I can read books on chemistry that show me how this was 1st discovered, and then replicate that test if I feel the need. I can also see the results of other tests where the same results were found, but in different ways, and replicate them.

But then you have other beliefs that you could never verify, such as your belief that there are ways to verify beliefs.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 01:54 PM
This might come down to how you define "anarchist," which is why I simply said "not a statist." Does Gary North count? What about the book of Judges in the Bible?

I don't follow your last sentence. If one is against a monopoly of violence, then one has a sense of ought. But if one has a sense of ought, then one advocates a society ruled by the law of a god. So it would seem to be that, not only can one be an anarchist and a theocrat, but that it's positively impossible to be an anarchist without being a theocrat.

EXACTLY. Where is the "ought" derived from an atheist worldview??? There is none.

Excellent point Erowe1.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 02:00 PM
YumYum, all your fighting and slander against the Word of God will only result in your downfall. I tell you this as a friend and fellow forum member: don't fight against the Word. The Word of the Lord is eternal, and will never pass away. The Creator of the universe has revealed Himself to man and man can depend on His Word. The sovereign Lord has made sure that we today have His eternal Word.

You can't "believe in Jesus" if you don't believe in Gods Word. Jesus did not write any of the gospels YumYum.

So, even though the Boreans were more honorable (according to Paul) because they thoroughly researched everything before accepting what Paul preached to them, I am some how "slandering" God's word because I ask questions. How am I slandering "God's word"?

Jesus has something to say about the Bible. He told the Jews that they were wrong in thinking that by studying the Bible diligently they would gain everlasting life. No, they would gain everlasting life only by doing what I have done, and what Jesus commanded me to do: "Come to me!"


"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
John 5;39,40

YumYum
07-24-2011, 02:04 PM
I hit submit before I finished, but I ask this question:


The Bible cannot and does not have an answer for everything. It doesn't say what happened to the bugs during the global flood. The Bible has many contradictions.

The Bible is the reason that we have so many different Christian religions. If the Christians can't depend on the Bible to explain the very nature of "who" God is without disagreement, how can the Bible be trusted to be accurate about the origins of man?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 02:04 PM
How is that which you use to verify a belief itself verified?

Further verification should always be possible if needed. If something is true, there should be many, many ways to show it to be so.
This question, however, is why I said "in theory". I don't need to spend the rest of my life verifying that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west every day. However, if one day the opposite happened, it would probably be enough to disprove the belief I previously held and cause me to reevaluate a great deal of my thinking.



I have a thermometer outside my window. It says it is 90 degrees. weather.com also claims that it is 90. The local news says there is a heat advisory. I see children outside playing in the water from a hydrant. A man walking by in a suit is sweating heavily. These are all separate indications that it is hot, more or less 90, outside. It leads me to believe that it is likey 90 degrees outside.
I would be very surprised to find it cold if I go outside right now.

However, if I were to look out and see my thermometer reading 120 degrees but it is snowing, people are bundled up, and the weather report says it is 10 below, I am more likely to believe that the thermometer is broken than I am to believe it is 120 degrees. I could verify this, though. For example, I could bring the thermometer inside and put it 1st in the freezer for a bit, and then in some boiling water, and see if it changes.

If, however, I believe that The Thermometer is always right and cannot be questioned, things might be different. I would go out in the snow wearing shorts and a t-shirt. If people asked me why, I would tell them I judge all thing in light of The Thermometers reading. Any meteorologist who tells me that it is 10 below does not have the same foundational belief as me and I will not accept their expert opinions. Anyone's description or understanding of the weather that does not agree with The Thermometer is flawed. I will consider their opinions only if their opinion is that it is whatever temperature The Thermometer says it is.

PaulConventionWV
07-24-2011, 02:06 PM
Never said they were. Why do you ask? If our senses are SO fallible that they make me think the stove is on when it isn't, we wouldn't get much done, would we? If they were so fallible we can't measure shadows, we'd have a damn hard time building spaceships, wouldn't we.

Our senses are certainly fallible. That's why extra steps of verification are so important. If senses were INfallible, we'd all be obliged to believe in the Loch Ness monster simple because some number of apparently earnest people have seen it.

I find it highly amusing that you seem to think this might be a "gotcha" moment, when you're the one out there claiming the bible, of ALL things, is in fact infallible. A roughly translated, heavily altered book of what is essentially fantasy is the only physical thing you seem to find infallible.

I don't see why people keep claiming the Bible is "heavily altered." It is, by far, the most authentic piece of literature in human history.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 02:07 PM
I have a thermometer outside my window.

How do you know this?

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 02:08 PM
I don't see why people keep claiming the Bible is "heavily altered." It is, by far, the most authentic piece of literature in human history.

That's one of the most false things that I've ever heard on the internet

erowe1
07-24-2011, 02:10 PM
That's one of the most false things that I've ever heard on the internet

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stop pretending you've studied this subject. Some ignorant person might actually believe it.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 02:12 PM
How do you know this?

I believe this to be true because I'm looking at it. (The 1st part of my story there is true.)

Or are you asking "how can you trust what you see"? I can also reach out the window and touch it. I also installed it in its present position. If I go to get it tomorrow and my hand passes through it, I might have to reevaluate, but thus far in the life of this thermometer, every experience I've had with it indicates it does exist, it does tell the temperature, and it is situated outside my window.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 02:13 PM
Further verification should always be possible if needed. If something is true, there should be many, many ways to show it to be so.
This question, however, is why I said "in theory". I don't need to spend the rest of my life verifying that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west every day. However, if one day the opposite happened, it would probably be enough to disprove the belief I previously held and cause me to reevaluate a great deal of my thinking.



I have a thermometer outside my window. It says it is 90 degrees. weather.com also claims that it is 90. The local news says there is a heat advisory. I see children outside playing in the water from a hydrant. A man walking by in a suit is sweating heavily. These are all separate indications that it is hot, more or less 90, outside. It leads me to believe that it is likey 90 degrees outside.
I would be very surprised to find it cold if I go outside right now.

However, if I were to look out and see my thermometer reading 120 degrees but it is snowing, people are bundled up, and the weather report says it is 10 below, I am more likely to believe that the thermometer is broken than I am to believe it is 120 degrees. I could verify this, though. For example, I could bring the thermometer inside and put it 1st in the freezer for a bit, and then in some boiling water, and see if it changes.

If, however, I believe that The Thermometer is always right and cannot be questioned, things might be different. I would go out in the snow wearing shorts and a t-shirt. If people asked me why, I would tell them I judge all thing in light of The Thermometers reading. Any meteorologist who tells me that it is 10 below does not have the same foundational belief as me and I will not accept their expert opinions. Anyone's description or understanding of the weather that does not agree with The Thermometer is flawed. I will consider their opinions only if their opinion is that it is whatever temperature The Thermometer says it is.

Good illustration. Everybody should carefully read this.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 02:13 PM
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stop pretending you've studied this subject. Some ignorant person might actually believe it.

Are you trying to tell me that the Catholic church actually didn't burn any literature that they felt threatened by

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 02:13 PM
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stop pretending you've studied this subject. Some ignorant person might actually believe it.

I've studied the subject and I agree with him.

Please explain why you think the bible to be unaltered and, if you belief it to be true, authentic and accurate.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:15 PM
I believe this to be true because I'm looking at it. (The 1st part of my story there is true.)

Or are you asking "how can you trust what you see"? I can also reach out the window and touch it. I also installed it in its present position. If I go to get it tomorrow and my hand passes through it, I might have to reevaluate, but thus far in the life of this thermometer, every experience I've had with it indicates it does exist, it does tell the temperature, and it is situated outside my window.

Are your senses infallible?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:16 PM
I've studied the subject and I agree with him.

Please explain why you think the bible to be unaltered and, if you belief it to be true, authentic and accurate.

Really? What textual scholars have you read?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 02:16 PM
Are your senses infallible?

Please see my 1st response to this question a page or two earlier.

Thanks.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 02:18 PM
I believe this to be true because I'm looking at it. (The 1st part of my story there is true.)


Not only that, but you also believe that you can trust what you see.

Do you believe this on blind faith? Or can you verify it independently?

And yes, these questions will continue with your next answer, and so on ad infinitum.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:19 PM
Please see my 1st response to this question a page or two earlier.

Thanks.

Could you just quicky tell me so that I dont have to search back? It's a yes or no question.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 02:21 PM
I've studied the subject and I agree with him.

Cut the crap. This is like when one of my kids lies to me about something that is obvious to me, but they can't fathom how I know they're lying.

erowe1
07-24-2011, 02:22 PM
Are you trying to tell me that the Catholic church actually didn't burn any literature that they felt threatened by

No. That's a complete non sequitur. And if you think it isn't, you're proving my point.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 02:22 PM
I don't see why people keep claiming the Bible is "heavily altered." It is, by far, the most authentic piece of literature in human history.

If the Bible isn't "altered", why are there two conclusions in the book of Mark?

If it isn't "altered", why are there two conclusions in the book of John?

If something is authentic, it is "original". If the Bible was "authentic", as you say, why are there scriptures that have been added much later by unknown copyists?

Why is John 7:53-8:11 added to the Bible, when it is not found (according to my NIV study Bible) "in the earliest manuscripts", nor supported by the "ancient witnesses"?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 02:24 PM
Really? What textual scholars have you read?

Jeffrey Neihaus, Spinoza, Ellegard, Russel (Bertrand), Bart Ehram, and several others.

I did a great deal of reading on the bible (and of the bible) in the 5-6 years following a personal tragedy. I first moved towards faith, but, well, I think you understand my position now.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:24 PM
If the Bible isn't "altered", why are there two conclusions in the book of Mark?

If it isn't "altered", why are there two conclusions in the book of John?

If something is authentic, it is "original". If the Bible was "authentic", as you say, why are there scriptures that have been added much later by unknown copyists?

Why is John 7:53-8:11 added to the Bible, when it is not found (according to my NIV study Bible) "in the earliest manuscripts", nor supported by the "ancient witnesses"?


THAT is your argument against the reliability of the Scriptures???? Oh YumYum....

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 02:27 PM
Are your senses infallible?


for that matter, are your senses infallible when reading the bible, or listening to another read it out loud?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 02:27 PM
THAT is your argument against the reliability of the Scriptures???? Oh YumYum....

The 1st argument should be that we have no reason to believe them in the 1st place. It shouldn't be our job to disprove work of fantasy.
Please disprove The Hobbit. Go!


Also, my answer to your question, for the 2nd time:

"Never said they were. Why do you ask? If our senses are SO fallible that they make me think the stove is on when it isn't, we wouldn't get much done, would we? If they were so fallible we can't measure shadows, we'd have a damn hard time building spaceships, wouldn't we.

Our senses are certainly fallible. That's why extra steps of verification are so important. If senses were INfallible, we'd all be obliged to believe in the Loch Ness monster simple because some number of apparently earnest people have seen it.

I find it highly amusing that you seem to think this might be a "gotcha" moment, when you're the one out there claiming the bible, of ALL things, is in fact infallible. A roughly translated, heavily altered book of what is essentially fantasy is the only physical thing you seem to find infallible."


And finally, my senses are telling me it's time to start making dinner. I'll rejoin you all after.

Vote Ron Paul!

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:29 PM
Jeffrey Neihaus, Spinoza, Ellegard, Russel (Bertrand), Bart Ehram, and several others.


So you only read Ehrman, and other atheistic scholars? How can I take you even in the REMOTEST sense seriously if you haven't read any scholars who actually defend the reliability of the Scriptures like White, Adams, etc.???

I'm sorry but I can't take anything you say seriously. Even I have examined the atheistic claims and found them completely failing. Maybe you should read some real Biblical textual scholars.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:32 PM
for that matter, are your senses infallible when reading the bible, or listening to another read it out loud?

My senses aren't the basis for me obtaining truth:).

But if senses are the basis for your method of obtaining truth, I can surely see how they are fallible.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 02:34 PM
My senses aren't the basis for me obtaining truth:).

But if senses are the basis for your method of obtaining truth, I can surely see how they are fallible.

How do you even know what's in the bible then?

Theocrat
07-24-2011, 02:35 PM
Further verification should always be possible if needed. If something is true, there should be many, many ways to show it to be so.
This question, however, is why I said "in theory". I don't need to spend the rest of my life verifying that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west every day. However, if one day the opposite happened, it would probably be enough to disprove the belief I previously held and cause me to reevaluate a great deal of my thinking.



I have a thermometer outside my window. It says it is 90 degrees. weather.com also claims that it is 90. The local news says there is a heat advisory. I see children outside playing in the water from a hydrant. A man walking by in a suit is sweating heavily. These are all separate indications that it is hot, more or less 90, outside. It leads me to believe that it is likey 90 degrees outside.
I would be very surprised to find it cold if I go outside right now.

However, if I were to look out and see my thermometer reading 120 degrees but it is snowing, people are bundled up, and the weather report says it is 10 below, I am more likely to believe that the thermometer is broken than I am to believe it is 120 degrees. I could verify this, though. For example, I could bring the thermometer inside and put it 1st in the freezer for a bit, and then in some boiling water, and see if it changes.

If, however, I believe that The Thermometer is always right and cannot be questioned, things might be different. I would go out in the snow wearing shorts and a t-shirt. If people asked me why, I would tell them I judge all thing in light of The Thermometers reading. Any meteorologist who tells me that it is 10 below does not have the same foundational belief as me and I will not accept their expert opinions. Anyone's description or understanding of the weather that does not agree with The Thermometer is flawed. I will consider their opinions only if their opinion is that it is whatever temperature The Thermometer says it is.

I definitely agree that we should have evidences for the things we believe in, and in many instances, they should be empirically verified. However, it seems to me that you only allow empirical verification before anything can be considered true, which is to say, you rely on exclusive scientific methods. If I am wrong about that, please excuse my ignorance.

It also needs to be said that some things cannot be empirically verified due to the sheer nature of what they are. For instance, when you stated, "Further verification should always be possible if needed," that is a statement which is not empirically verified. It is an idea, an axiom. It is something held true outside of natural things (After all, nature itself doesn't tell us "Further verification should always be possible if needed.").

At some point of verification, you will have to accept something as true by fiat. That is simply inescapable, philosophically speaking. The only question remains is why should that thing or person or idea be the standard where the buck stops.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:36 PM
How do you even know what's in the bible then?

God reveals information to man, which is the only way man can know anything.

Furthermore, I am glad you admitted that senses are fallible (by questioning my knowledge of the Bible), because it completely undercuts your entire epistemology.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 02:38 PM
THAT is your argument against the reliability of the Scriptures???? Oh YumYum....

If the Bible was written word for word by God, yes, these are very valid questions. If the Bible wasn't written by God, why do you claim it is infallible?

Here is a simple example where there is a contradiction in the Bible. Jesus makes the statement at Mark 2:25,26:

25 Jesus said to them, “Haven’t you ever read in the Scriptures what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 26 He went into the house of God (during the days when Abiathar was high priest) and broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread that only the priests are allowed to eat. He also gave some to his companions.”

Now, turn your Bible to 1 Samuel 21:1. Was the high priest "Abithar", as Jesus stated? No, according to Samuel, it was "Ahimelech".


David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, "Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?"

So, who do I believe? Samuel, or Jesus?

YumYum
07-24-2011, 02:40 PM
God reveals information to man, which is the only way man can know anything.

Furthermore, I am glad you admitted that senses are fallible (by questioning my knowledge of the Bible), because it completely undercuts your entire epistemology.

Did He tell you anything about what happened to the bugs?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:43 PM
Did He tell you anything about what happened to the bugs?

If He didn't reveal it specifically, then I would accept anything by good and necessary deduction from the Scripture regarding that specific question. That is the 6th time I've said that.:)

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 02:47 PM
God reveals information to man, which is the only way man can know anything.

Furthermore, I am glad you admitted that senses are fallible (by questioning my knowledge of the Bible), because it completely undercuts your entire epistemology.

Ah so you're some idiot who believes to have spoken directly to god

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:48 PM
Did He tell you anything about what happened to the bugs?

Notice again what epistemology is bring utilized here.^^^

Let's FIRST try to validate an empircal epistemology and then we can move on from there.

Notice how critics of revelation will always attack our revelational epistemology by assuming their own empirical epistemology without question.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:50 PM
Ah so you're some idiot who believes to have spoken directly to god

Until you answer away how empiricism fails in providing a person with truth, I am not going to answer your question.

Explain how we get truth from the senses (which you already admitted were fallible) and then I will answer your question.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 02:52 PM
If He didn't reveal it specifically, then I would accept anything by good and necessary deduction from the Scripture regarding that specific question. That is the 6th time I've said that.:)

Ok, fair enough.

Take a look when you get a chance at this old post I linked below. I read through the whole thing, and while Theocrat does make a few points on this thread, there is not one good argument to refute the OP's claims that God endorses slavery. I found this while researching information on slavery and the Bible. You may not have time to read it right now, but if you do, I wish someone who thinks that the Bible is infallible, and believes The Old Testament to be an accurate portrayal of who God is, would kindly refute the OP's claims. If you reply to this thread, it will reappear in the "Off Topics" forum. It really makes one think, as it is rather disturbing.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?170644-SLAVERY-and-the-BIBLE

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 02:54 PM
Until you answer away how empiricism fails in providing a person with, I am not going to answer your question.

Explain how we get truth from the senses (which you already admitted were fallible) and then I will answer your question.

Truth can only come from our senses, simply because there is nothing else

YumYum
07-24-2011, 02:55 PM
Notice again what epistemology is bring utilized here.^^^

Let's FIRST try to validate an empircal epistemology and then we can move on from there.

Notice how critics of revelation will always attack our revelational epistemology by assuming their own empirical epistemology without question.

True, but you must also ponder the significance of short person behavior, in peddle depressed, panchromatic resonance, and other highly ambient domains, when you are trying to validate an empirical epistemology.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 02:59 PM
Truth can only come from our senses, simply because there is nothing else


This is the second time in this thread you have used the inductive fallacy. Your statement is completely illogical and self-refuting.

Please Google induction and the inductive fallacy so that you don't poison the boards with this falsehood again. Thanks.

Ranger29860
07-24-2011, 03:02 PM
Blind faith is not something to be proud of.

Here is a suggestion, read another book once in awhile.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 03:05 PM
This is the second time in this thread you have used the inductive fallacy. Your statement is completely illogical and self-refuting.

Please Google induction and the inductive fallacy so that you don't poison the boards with this falsehood again. Thanks.

no no no, your statement that this book that you read indeed is the infallible truth is the fallacy.

Slutter McGee
07-24-2011, 03:18 PM
This is the second time in this thread you have used the inductive fallacy. Your statement is completely illogical and self-refuting.

Please Google induction and the inductive fallacy so that you don't poison the boards with this falsehood again. Thanks.

Wow a logic lesson from the person that thinks infanticide is a logical progression from abortion. Wonderful.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 03:40 PM
Wow a logic lesson from the person that thinks infanticide is a logical progression from abortion. Wonderful.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Do you know about the fallacy of induction?


Sincerely,

AB

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 03:54 PM
Do you know about the fallacy of induction?


Sincerely,

AB


What the hell are you talking about, he didn't even post in this thread

Brett85
07-24-2011, 04:02 PM
Exactly. You don't know squat about it. So perhaps you should keep your mouth shut about it.

Wow. You're always so nice to people here.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 04:09 PM
What the hell are you talking about, he didn't even post in this thread

Huh?

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 04:12 PM
That guy you replied to didn't post in this thread. It's only your fallible senses and sinful logic that make you think he did

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 04:13 PM
That guy you replied to didn't post in this thread. It's only your fallible senses and sinful logic that make you think he did

Maybe you have him blocked, but he did.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 04:18 PM
Maybe you have him blocked, but he did.


Well, if you want to take aquabuddha's position that you can't believe what you observe, than you can't assume that that guy posted in this thread at all, or that he even exists

Brett85
07-24-2011, 04:18 PM
Here's a short answer regarding the question of whether insects were on Noah's ark.

http://www.drdino.com/did-noah-take-all-the-millions-of-species-of-insects-on-the-ark/

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 04:22 PM
Here's a short answer regarding the question of whether insects were on Noah's ark.

http://www.drdino.com/did-noah-take-all-the-millions-of-species-of-insects-on-the-ark/

Thanks for posting. He came to the same conclusions I did.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 04:27 PM
Well, if you want to take aquabuddha's position that you can't believe what you observe, than you can't assume that that guy posted in this thread at all, or that he even exists

I'm not saying that you can't generally trust your senses. I'm just saying that they are fallible (which you have never once refuted).

I'm saying that God gives us information on the occasion that we have the sensation. I am an occasionalist like Malbranche, or Clark, or Cheung was.

If you think that sensation gives us information then why don't you stop keeping us all hanging and prove it? I bet you cant:).

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 04:31 PM
Thanks for posting. He came to the same conclusions I did.

You assumed something without actually considering any form of reality. Can millions of species from around the world ALL survive in such environments?

YumYum
07-24-2011, 05:29 PM
Here's a short answer regarding the question of whether insects were on Noah's ark.

http://www.drdino.com/did-noah-take-all-the-millions-of-species-of-insects-on-the-ark/


Noah was commanded to take into the ark all the animals on land in whose nostrils was the breath of life (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). There is no reason to believe that all the varieties of insects were on the ark because they breathe through their skin and do not have nostrils. They could have survived on floating matter or by burrowing in the mud. Some of the insects may have been on the ark in the fur of the animals or in nooks and crannies of the ark. The Bible does not teach that they had to be on board.

Millions of different variety of bugs would have floated on debris for almost a year with no food; let alone endure the pelting rain that lasted for forty days and forty nights?

Millions of different variety of bugs could have survived by burrowing in the mud, and stayed there for possibly years while the waters receded?

Why not just say God put them in air bubbles and protected them? Because the argument provided on the web page seems to be really grasping for straws.

It would imply that God let the bugs "wing it", in other words, survive somehow on their own through a flood that covered the entire globe.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 05:32 PM
You assumed something without actually considering any form of reality. Can millions of species from around the world ALL survive in such environments?

I hope AB thinks about this important question you have asked here before replying. I can see cockroaches maybe surviving, but I can't see millions of different species of bugs surviving such a calamitous event without God's intervention.

KingRobbStark
07-24-2011, 05:42 PM
I'm not saying that you can't generally trust your senses. I'm just saying that they are fallible (which you have never once refuted).

I'm saying that God gives us information on the occasion that we have the sensation. I am an occasionalist like Malbranche, or Clark, or Cheung was.

If you think that sensation gives us information then why don't you stop keeping us all hanging and prove it? I bet you cant:).

Senses themselves are not fallible, but the way we choose to interpret them may be.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 05:43 PM
Millions of different variety of bugs would have floated on debris for almost a year with no food; let alone endure the pelting rain that lasted for forty days and forty nights?

Millions of different variety of bugs could have survived by burrowing in the mud, and stayed there for possibly years while the waters receded?

Why not just say God put them in air bubbles and protected them? Because the argument provided on the web page seems to be really grasping for straws.

It would imply that God let the bugs "wing it", in other words, survive somehow on their own through a flood that covered the entire globe.

Is this supposed to be an argument against what was presented?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 05:44 PM
Senses themselves are not fallible, but the way we choose to interpret them may be.

?

Huh?

KingRobbStark
07-24-2011, 05:51 PM
I hope AB thinks about this important question you have asked here before replying. I can see cockroaches maybe surviving, but I can't see millions of different species of bugs surviving such a calamitous event without God's intervention.

Over 90% of species on earth have went extent. Couldn't they have vanished during the Flood?

KingRobbStark
07-24-2011, 05:52 PM
?

Huh?

What?

YumYum
07-24-2011, 05:54 PM
Is this supposed to be an argument against what was presented?

An argument? No, just an observation. I'm still trying to figure out the claim you made that no bugs died prior to the curse at Genesis 3:14. If you are correct, we need to figure out how long the bugs were on the Earth from their creation till God cursed the serpent.

Do you believe that God made the Universe and the Earth, and all the things in the Earth, in 6 days that were 24 hours long?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 05:58 PM
An argument? No, just an observation. I'm still trying to figure out the claim you made that no bugs died prior to the curse at Genesis 3:14. If you are correct, we need to figure out how long the bugs were on the Earth from their creation till God cursed the serpent.

Do you believe that God made the Universe and the Earth, and all the things in the Earth, in 6 days that were 24 hours long?

Anyone can see that you are just lying now YumYum. Why would you lie when people can so easily go back and read my posts??? I don't understand it. I guess I'll just let it go.... I don't think it is beneficial to converse with you anymore.

KingRobbStark
07-24-2011, 06:00 PM
Do you believe that God made the Universe and the Earth, and all the things in the Earth, in 6 days that were 24 hours long?

Pacific time?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:07 PM
An argument? No, just an observation. I'm still trying to figure out the claim you made that no bugs died prior to the curse at Genesis 3:14.

Link or post to where I said this? I will give you post after post of where I said insects weren't "living" in the sense that the Scriptures use the term. Where is the quote that I said this?:)

YumYum
07-24-2011, 06:11 PM
Anyone can see that you are just lying now YumYum. Why would you lie when people can so easily go back and read my posts??? I don't understand it. I guess I'll just let it go.... I don't think it is beneficial to converse with you anymore.

You did say that nothing living "died" before God cursed the serpent at Genesis 3:14. Then you compared the bugs to "dirt". Have you thought about it and changed your views, that possibly the bugs did die before the curse?

Even if you believe that God created everything in 6 days that had a 24 hour period, the curse did not happen until after Eve was created and had sinned. That could have been a couple of years from the time God went into His Sabbath and began His rest. That is a lot of bugs that would have multiplied during that time. Also, the birds and frogs would have killed the bugs that they ate, so that is one way the bugs would have died before the curse at Genesis 3:14.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:17 PM
You did say that nothing living "died" before God cursed the serpent at Genesis 3:14. Then you compared the bugs to "dirt". Have you thought about it and changed your views, that possibly the bugs did die before the curse?

Even if you believe that God created everything in 6 days that had a 24 hour period, the curse did not happen until after Eve was created and had sinned. That could have been a couple of years from the time God went into His Sabbath and began His rest. That is a lot of bugs that would have multiplied during that time. Also, the birds and frogs would have killed the bugs that they ate, so that is one way the bugs would have died before the curse at Genesis 3:14.

Anyone can go back to see what I said. Do you think you will fool people if you say a lie enough times YumYum lol? I will let people go back and read ny posts to see if what you say about them holds up. I think it will say a lot about our integrity.

You say I said bugs died before the fall. I say I didn't say that.

Let's let people go back in the posts to find out what we both said:).

YumYum
07-24-2011, 06:18 PM
Link or post to where I said this? I will give you post after post of where I said insects weren't "living" in the sense that the Scriptures use the term. Where is the quote that I said this?:)

You said at post #47:


Everything that lived didn't die, that's right

So, you are saying that insects aren't living in God's eyes, even though He created them? If that is the case, why does God admonish lazy people to imitate the industrious ant at Proverbs 6:6?


Consider the ant, you lazy bum. Watch its ways, and become wise.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:19 PM
What?

Could you explain further?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:22 PM
You said at post #47:



So, you are saying that insects aren't living in God's eyes, even though He created them? If that is the case, why does God admonish lazy people to imitate the industrious ant at Proverbs 6:6?

I never said that insects were living. In fact I clarified what I meant by "living" at least 3 times.


Why would you intentionally misrepresent me like that? Do you think it is honorable to misrepresent someone, even after he has clarified his position countless times?

SpicyTurkey
07-24-2011, 06:24 PM
I just finished reading this thread, and all I've got to say is LOL

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 06:27 PM
So let us clarify:

Bugs are not alive. I do NOT have bug bites on my legs, because only living creatures can bite. A squirrel must have bitten me while I wasn't looking.

I think I understand AquaBuddah's argument now.

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:28 PM
So let us clarify:

Bugs are not alive. I do NOT have bug bites on my legs, because only living creatures can bite. A squirrel must have bitten me while I wasn't looking.

I think I understand AquaBuddah's argument now.

Huh?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 06:29 PM
Huh?

"I never said that insects were living."

YumYum
07-24-2011, 06:30 PM
Over 90% of species on earth have went extent. Couldn't they have vanished during the Flood?

It is possible if a global flood had happened. If we had a global flood 6,000-7,000 years ago, the evidence we be so overwhelming, there would be no debate on this issue.

Even if we had a global flood 100,000 years ago, the evidence would still be overwhelming.

I talked to the professor, who was the head of the geology department at the University I attended, on the subject of a global flood, and he made the points I just mentioned.

I asked him: "Don't you think you could have a let some bias influence your decision regarding Noah's flood?"

He laughed at me and said: "Are you kidding"?

I said: "No, why do you say that?"

He said: "If I could prove that there had been the global flood of Genesis, I would write a book and become a multi-millionaire."

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:31 PM
Now I realize why I try not to get into debates with trolls:(

Waste of time...

YumYum
07-24-2011, 06:31 PM
So let us clarify:

Bugs are not alive. I do NOT have bug bites on my legs, because only living creatures can bite. A squirrel must have bitten me while I wasn't looking.

I think I understand AquaBuddah's argument now.

I'm lost. Could you please explain it to me?

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 06:33 PM
I'm lost. Could you please explain it to me?

I was being facetious. Aqua seems to be indicating that bugs are not living things. Therefore, I must be imagining (with my fallible senses) that these inanimate bugs are biting me. How could a non-living thing bite me, after all?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:35 PM
It is possible if a global flood had happened. If we had a global flood 6,000-7,000 years ago, the evidence we be so overwhelming, there would be no debate on this issue.

Even if we had a global flood 100,000 years ago, the evidence would still be overwhelming.

I talked to the professor, who was the head of the geology department at the University I attended, on the subject of a global flood, and he made the points I just mentioned.

I asked him: "Don't you think you could have a let some bias influence your decision regarding Noah's flood?"

He laughed at me and said: "Are you kidding"?

I said: "No, why do you say that?"

He said: "If I could prove that there had been the global flood of Genesis, I would write a book and become a multi-millionaire."

?

Why would you think anything other than your unbelieving leftist professors would be an evolutionist? LoL....

Why do you keep going back to the Darwinist geology professor you talked to? Have you ever talked to or even read a book by a creationist professor?

Ugh....

YumYum
07-24-2011, 06:38 PM
Now I realize why I try not to get into debates with trolls:(

Waste of time...

your the one making the outlandish claims and then condemning people who don't agree with you. You yourself admitted "I don't know because I wasn't there". So, why don't you admit that to all the subjects you claim to be an "expert" in?

The truth is AB (and many have said this on this forum), nobody knows for certain the facts of how we came here. And erowe1 made the statement that, while evolutionists cannot prove their claims because "they weren't there when it happened", neither can creationists prove their claims because "they weren't there when it happened."

So, nobody is being a troll. You just get pissed when people don't agree with you.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 06:43 PM
?

Why would you think anything other than your unbelieving leftist professors would be an evolutionist? LoL....

Why do you keep going back to the Darwinist geology professor you talked to? Have you ever talked to or even read a book by a creationist professor?

Ugh....

I would hope most professors ARE evolutionists, actually. I would be a bit confused if they weren't, seeing as it is based on modern science, not 2000 year old historical fiction.

YumYum
07-24-2011, 06:48 PM
?

Why would you think anything other than your unbelieving leftist professors would be an evolutionist? LoL....

Why do you keep going back to the Darwinist geology professor you talked to? Have you ever talked to or even read a book by a creationist professor?

Ugh....

Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I gave an excellent speech at the University (MSSU) on evolution. I gave it to an audience of Christians, and got a resounding applause.

The professor that I interviewed to prepare for my dissertation teaches evolution at the University, and he is a devout Christian. Very interesting and intelligent man. He really made me think hard about things, and I can thank him that I never became an atheist, because by this time in my life I was very disillusioned with religion; the Bible, God, the whole thing. He is the one that instilled in me that science and religion need to work together; not work against each other.

You seem to be bound by some really rigid indoctrination. Do you feel that way? At least erowe1 (who I thought was pretty set on his views) is willing to explore possibilities that are not accepted by mainstream Christianity. You need to get rid of preconceived notions that you have been spoon-fed, and let that sharp mind of yours do your own thinking for you. You might surprise yourself, AB! :)

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:49 PM
I would hope most professors ARE evolutionists, actually. I would be a bit confused if they weren't, seeing as it is based on modern science, not 2000 year old historical fiction.

Would you be confused that the greatest discoveries of science occured before the religion of Darwinism?

You are aware that science existed before Darwinism....right?

Sola_Fide
07-24-2011, 06:52 PM
Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I gave an excellent speech at the University (MSSU) on evolution. I gave it to an audience of Christians, and got a resounding applause.

The professor that I interviewed to prepare for my dissertation teaches evolution at the University, and he is a devout Christian. Very interesting and intelligent man. He really made me think hard about things, and I can thank him that I never became an atheist, because by this time in my life I was very disillusioned with religion; the Bible, God, the whole thing. He is the one that instilled in me that science and religion need to work together; not work against each other.

You seem to be bound by some really rigid indoctrination. Do you feel that way? At least erowe1 (who I thought was pretty set on his views) is willing to explore possibilities that are not accepted by mainstream Christianity. You need to get rid of preconceived notions that you have been spoon-fed, and let that sharp mind of yours do your own thinking for you. You might surprise yourself, AB! :)

So you gave a speech on evolution and the "Christian" professor confirmed to you how atheistic science and "religion" can go hand in hand???

That is not what I meant by reading a book or talking to a Creationist professor, YumYum.

jonhowe
07-24-2011, 06:54 PM
Would you be confused that the greatest discoveries of science occured before the religion of Darwinism?

You are aware that science existed before the Darwinism....right?

Is this an argument of some sort? I've never encountered one like it...

We had good presidents before Ron Paul, so why make Ron Paul president? Is that the line you're going for?
Also, please list for me the "greatest" discoveries of science. I would LOVE to see the "greatest", in order if you could.

Natural selection would be in the top 3, up there with gravity and relativity, but apparently I'm wrong. Aquabuddah knows the "greatest" discoveries of science, and apparently they all happened before darwin. Get listing, friend!

YumYum
07-24-2011, 07:02 PM
So you gave a speech on evolution and the "Christian" professor confirmed to you how atheistic science and "religion" can go hand in hand???

That is not what I meant by reading a book or taking to a Creationist professor, YumYum.

Do you mean have I met and talked to a professor of biology that taught creation as described in Genesis. No. But I did go to the atheist convention with my cousin and watched the debates between the atheists who were scientists, and the Christians who were scientists. There wasn't any discussion on creation, though. It was a good debate, and I want to go again.

The Jehovah's witnesses have a book titled "Did Man Get Here By Evolution Or Creation" that I used to refer to when I was a witness. They made some excellent points until I discovered that they were misquoting scientists profusely, and making invalid arguments. Their book was one of the first religious books to refute Evolution head on, and after examining the facts, I realized it was nothing but garbage, and yet, I see creationists today using the same arguments that Jehovah's witnesses have used.

The website "TalkOrigins" has debates between scientists who are evolutionists, and scientists who are creationists. It is a great site with some really good debates. Check it out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Bordillo
07-24-2011, 07:06 PM
I believe having public schools is a good thing, but their curriculum should be determined by the people of that particular area, not the federal government

unklejman
07-24-2011, 07:14 PM
I was reading Genesis yesterday and I have a question for those who take Genesis as a literal historic account of the creation of earth.

Did God create birds on the fifth day, or the sixth day?

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 07:32 PM
Now I realize why I try not to get into debates with trolls

Waste of time...
Ya, us silly trolls and our "objective reality"

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 07:37 PM
Would you be confused that the greatest discoveries of science occured before the religion of Darwinism?

You are aware that science existed before Darwinism....right?

Ya, so Darwinism came around at about the same time as many other great discoveries of science. What of it?

Brett85
07-24-2011, 07:49 PM
I believe having public schools is a good thing, but their curriculum should be determined by the people of that particular area, not the federal government

That's my view as well. I've actually been called a "statist" here before simply for not wanting to abolish public schools. ;)

PaulConventionWV
07-24-2011, 10:06 PM
It is possible if a global flood had happened. If we had a global flood 6,000-7,000 years ago, the evidence we be so overwhelming, there would be no debate on this issue.

Even if we had a global flood 100,000 years ago, the evidence would still be overwhelming.

I talked to the professor, who was the head of the geology department at the University I attended, on the subject of a global flood, and he made the points I just mentioned.

I asked him: "Don't you think you could have a let some bias influence your decision regarding Noah's flood?"

He laughed at me and said: "Are you kidding"?

I said: "No, why do you say that?"

He said: "If I could prove that there had been the global flood of Genesis, I would write a book and become a multi-millionaire."

The evidence is overwhelming. We have the Grand Canyon, trees standing up through multiple layers of geologic strata, and seashells at the top of mount everest. What the hell more do you need?

PaulConventionWV
07-24-2011, 10:13 PM
Is this an argument of some sort? I've never encountered one like it...

We had good presidents before Ron Paul, so why make Ron Paul president? Is that the line you're going for?
Also, please list for me the "greatest" discoveries of science. I would LOVE to see the "greatest", in order if you could.

Natural selection would be in the top 3, up there with gravity and relativity, but apparently I'm wrong. Aquabuddah knows the "greatest" discoveries of science, and apparently they all happened before darwin. Get listing, friend!

Natural selection was not "discovered." Everyone knew it was there, they just didn't call it that. Maybe I should call the sky blue and get an award. Natural selection, or the process of weeding out the bad, does not automatically make things better. That takes place in the imagination, not in real life.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 10:37 PM
Natural selection was not "discovered." Everyone knew it was there, they just didn't call it that. Maybe I should call the sky blue and get an award. Natural selection, or the process of weeding out the bad, does not automatically make things better. That takes place in the imagination, not in real life.


This kind of misunderstanding of Darwinism makes me sad

robert68
07-24-2011, 10:44 PM
This might come down to how you define "anarchist," which is why I simply said "not a statist." Does Gary North count? What about the book of Judges in the Bible?

I don't follow your last sentence. If one is against a monopoly of violence, then one has a sense of ought. But if one has a sense of ought, then one advocates a society ruled by the law of a god (i.e. an objective standard that defines some things as right and others as wrong). So it would seem that, not only can one be an anarchist and a theocrat, but that it's positively impossible to be an anarchist without being a theocrat.

I did some quick reading on him - there’re several articles on that very subject - no he’s not; although he may be anti state to a significant extent, like many minarchists are. He says himself (http://www.gonzotimes.com/2011/02/theocrat-gary-north-no-ally-of-mine/): "There is no such thing as legitimate Christian anarchism.”

If one as a matter of principle is against a society being ruled by conquest, or a society where a party has a monopoly on violence, then those principles cannot be dependent on a subjective term like “the law of God”, otherwise they’re not really principles, and their violation can always be justified. Gary North’s reasoning is an example.

Also, being against something doesn’t mean one believes in the “law of God”, not by a long shot. One couldn’t even be against “the law of God”, if that were so.

PaulConventionWV
07-24-2011, 10:59 PM
This kind of misunderstanding of Darwinism makes me sad

Please, enlighten me. I've heard it all. You might have noticed I ddin't say anything about Darwinism. I was talking about natural selection.

Anti Federalist
07-24-2011, 11:46 PM
I don't think most parents today are qualified to teach. Aren't these the same people that everyone on this forum call the "Mundanes", and the "Sheeple"? Better than having parents instruct, we can let the kids learn on youtube. They would be better off.

I've got to weigh in on this, even if addressed later in thread.

Mundane is pejorative term assigned to us by the ruling, governing and enforcing class that is over us.

That is how they see us, not how I, for one, regard my fellow man.

ClayTrainor
07-24-2011, 11:49 PM
That's my view as well. I've actually been called a "statist" here before simply for not wanting to abolish public schools. ;)

Well, you do seem to constantly advocate varying degrees of state intervention as some kind of solution to complex social problems, including education apparently. :)