|
Author
|
Topic: If we are all descended from Noah ...
|
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 46 of 165 (17468)
09-15-2002 6:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by nos482
09-15-2002 9:42 AM
|
|
WS: From Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. It can be surmised that daughters had been born earlier, for throughout Scriptures the eventual arrival of a male was so announced in so many other words. It never was considered worth mention that a daughter was born since the seed is through the male. Nos: Actually the sperm is the fertilizer, the "seed" is in the woman already it is called an Ovum, or egg. Do you know anything about reproductive science? Both the Sperm and Ovum carry equal amounts of the DNA required to produce an offspring. Do you hold the mistaken belief that all a woman does is carry the man's "seed" for him and that she doesn't have any real genetic say in it? WS: Actually it's a little more complicated than that. In every male/female cell there is a complete set of identical X chromosomes. A sex cell (sperm/egg) has one half of the ("X"/"Y") contributed. Meiosis involves a random choosing of genes from the two halves of the parent's chromosomes, producing a random mix of genes, each sex cell a completely unique creation. When combined in reproduction, the resultant child is the product of mixing four grandparents' genes. We all know all about that, don't we? That said, let's try to straighten out your apparent misunderstanding of Hebrew lineage reckoning. Citizen rights among them was entirely based on the lineage of the males, resulting in accounting only for male progeny except in matters of cultural interest. Thee is a big reason for that system. In the beginning there were two seeds, that of Adam and that of Eve. In all fairness, the responsibility for the original sin fell upon Adam who was the one of two who received the one and only law from God before Eve was even made. All responsibility falls on the male. When he failed to enforce it, his sin was reckoned against his seed (lineage), not that of the woman. That is why the Bible has the sins of the fathers falling on the sons for several generations, in fact to all his descendants. So it was that God could legally make entry into the human family through the untainted seed of the woman, mixed with the seed of God Himself. In that sense only is there any biblical disagreement with genetics. WS:From Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Nos: How could he have "known" her since there were no other people. WS: That is not a reasonable statement based on any fact, making a poor question. The Bible just doesn't state how many people had been born into the world before Cain was exiled. It seems more logical to assume the first 4 chapters of Genesis spanned several decades, and we already know females were hardly ever listed in geneologies anyway. Only the males were mentioned. We also know the two sons mentioned so far were already employed in regular jobs, Cain already put into the field tilling the cursed ground, Abel coming along later to keep the sheep. Eve meanwhile was doubtless busy obeying her charge to reproduce. In no way can you make a case there were no other people from which Cain could choose a wife, especially if the pattern of Scripture concerning accounting of females is considered. WS: It is fair to surmise Cain brought his wife, a sister born of Eve, or cousin, or neice, to a land he called Nod, and there "knew" her. Nos: Adam and Eve were only "children" WS: Where did you get that? The Bible says Adam was made a MAN, not a boy, and the pair was commanded to reproduce. Nos: This is all only speculation. WS: Your opinion. I'm going by what the Bible actually says, and making inference from the patterns of many Scriptures that support my speculations. For the purposes of this post, your belief "all" is only speculation is both wrong and moot. I began with Scripture to supply the KNOWN, then made inferences based on the known stated and not stated, but referred to in general. If you need the posting of the geneologies and verses demonstrating the principles referred to, I suppose I could paste it in for you, but the post would be quite large. From Genesis 5:4-5 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: [5] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. WS:We can assume Eve was alongside all those years populating the earth quite regularly. Josephus estimates "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." How many children were possible in 930 years of child bearing? We don't know how long Eve lived, as only the death of Adam is recorded, typical of Hebrew emphasis. Nor does the Bible state how many children there were, but surely MANY. You are only assuming. Many claimed great life spans back then, but the truth is that for most of humanity's existence the average lifespan was around 18 years, with a max of between 30 and 40 years. This is one reason why we "fall apart" when were reach our 30's and 40's. A long life wasn't important as long as we lived long enough to reproduce and raise our children to maturity. It has really only been recently that we have been able to extend it to what it is now of around an average of 80 years. BTW, if the rate continues to climb a person born now could expect to see an average lifespan of about 110 years. We are seeing more and more people celebrating their 100th and more birthdays. WS: "Only" assuming? I gave the reference concerning the age of Adam. That is not an assumption, but a statement from the Book of Genesis accepted literally by millions of people, no doubt thousands of scholars throughout thousands of years. The Genesis geneologies clearly state the ages of Adam's descendants, both when their sons were born, and when they died. I make no assumptions about that. Why exxagerate my post? The very long life spans are Bible fact. Science has not disproven any of that. Bible archeologists are turning up massive evidences of the accuracy of Bible statements, confirmed in the ancient writings cultures other than the Hebrews. The Bible teaches that the original sin and the continued proliferation of sin is responsible for disease, death, deterioration of Creation. Every generation suffered more and more until the life expectancies did in fact reach the deplorable limits you mention. Only modern technology has improved on that so pitifully compared to the long healthy lives once enjoyed before the Flood. WS: You claim it would take the 40 unrelated couples to make a genetically healthy population. I question that, but also doubt we can say the gene pool is healthy now anyway. It is FULL of copying errors with all the mutations imaginable. Starting with less than that 80 individual scenario is sort of moot to me anyway. If you are an eolutionist, you think it all began with the emergence of A man from some mutation of a lower life form such as an ape. I find it incomprehensible that 80 or more arose simultaneously from apes in time for them to breed in their lifetimes. The modern evolutionary concept of species considers the inability to reproduce with nearest ancestors to be definitive. That would require spontaneous emergence of the 80 individuals capable of reproducing to all be of the same species. Nos: Hardly. It appears that you don't understand genetics as well. It is not a matter of a sudden change, but a gradual one where in each generation the differences add up. We see this now in the Equus family where they are now to a point where they can still inter-breed and produce offspring, but most are infertile though not all are. Evoution is a very wasteful process. BTW, we are still a member of the primate family. WS: Understanding scientific genetics and conforming to evolutionary explanations are two very different things. Let me jump to that last statement. I am a member of the Order of Man, specifically now of the family of God as a Christian, not of the primates. The primates were made before Adam was made. Adam was a specially created class of being all alone in his own order, that of MAN, after the image and likeness of God. No animal was so created. The plants were made, then the animals to eat them, then man to dominate all of that. Plant-Animal-Man. Very simple. I don't know of a single geneticist who would say an organism would reproduce by combining sex cells outside the demanding constraints of each particular species. There is no inter-species reproduction. I still have a problem reconciling your 40 couple requirement. How did the original 40 arise if the changes were very slow and subtle? All 40 would have to be present in one generation simultaneously for them to begin your healthy genome. I don't buy it. There would have to have been simultaneous random changes in many humanoid individuals, each set of changes following a random course of collective benefit, yet remaining each and every one of the same species, else reproduction would fail between them. Look, I don't believe in evolution at all, and am not interested in that, lacking a good foundation in "evolutionary biology", geology, paleontology, astrophysics, etc.. It appears to me nobody should be sticking their nose too far out unless they master all the associated sciences. Failing that one would have to rely on the opinions of others without first-hand knowledge enough to defend a position. I can handle the Bible part. We're talking descendants of Noah, which more aptly should be 'descendants of Adam' (through Noah, his sons, and daughters-in-law), not just Noah. WS: I think 6,000 years of cultural awareness of the dangers of interbreeding has been sufficient to clean up the gene pool, and elimination of many of the accumulated copying errors through careful selection. Nos: They knew of the problems of in-breeding long ago, that is why they made up taboos about having sex with one's close relatives. WS: Exactly. They didn't need Moses to point that out, having had several thousand years to experiment. The significance of those family laws was to teach men what God considered to be a definition of sin. Those taboos helped cleanse the gene pool of certain "bad" and truly bad genes, a process known and practiced today. It's a process that keeps Chinese looking like Chinese, through the dominant genes of choice. Not "natural selection", but simple cultural selection and deliberate favoring of certain dominant genes. Nos: The vast majority of our DNA is not actually active, but leftovers from our evolutionary ancestors. It is called our "Junk" DNA. This is how they were able to complete the Book of Man through the Human Genome Project much faster than they originally expected. WS: The Bible says otherwise. It predated your belief, and will survive long past it. You impose a belief not proven, that our ancestors evolved. They allegedly evolved. Your 'explanation', a theory, says they evolved, based on certain supportive evidences. Your choice of explanation is subject to constant alterations as history reveals, in keeping with more sophisticated science methods. My explanation from the Bible is a survivor of time and is eternal, not subject to alteration. So why make such a definite statement you can't prove? Do you subscribe to the notion "evolution is a fact"? I don't think geneticists actually know more than the tip of the mountain of DNA knowledge that will probably take centuries to master, if ever. It will require very narrow specialties to break the project up into manageable parts, that in itself keeping any one person from comprehending the entire thing. As for so-called "junk DNA", I have doubts. I think they are considered junk or inactive simply because their functions are not yet known. For now only a small portion of what is on a measureable level is known. They might discover there are far more genes or processes in them (in a human chromosome) than already identified, after more sophisticated measurement is developed. In the randomness of sex cell meiosis, those functions sometimes emerge, no longer considered junk. They are just obscure, possibly normally held back by dominant genes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by nos482, posted 09-15-2002 9:42 AM | | nos482 has replied |
|
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3242 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: 03-19-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: That is not a reasonable statement based on any fact, making a poor question. The Bible just doesn't state how many people had been born into the world before Cain was exiled. It seems more logical to assume the first 4 chapters of Genesis spanned several decades, and we already know females were hardly ever listed in geneologies anyway. Only the males were mentioned. We also know the two sons mentioned so far were already employed in regular jobs, Cain already put into the field tilling the cursed ground, Abel coming along later to keep the sheep. Eve meanwhile was doubtless busy obeying her charge to reproduce. In no way can you make a case there were no other people from which Cain could choose a wife, especially if the pattern of Scripture concerning accounting of females is considered. WS: It is fair to surmise Cain brought his wife, a sister born of Eve, or cousin, or neice, to a land he called Nod, and there "knew" her.
Ok so I guess that you are finally admitting what most creationists avoid like the plague. If your belief is correct, Adam and Eves children employed incest to populate the planet (as "In the begginning God created Adam" then Eve but no other people are mentioned as being created and if the bible does not mention it then it is not there, ...right). So, I guess that this particular act was not a sin then? Maybe god allowed it due to expediency, "Hey, I need people to populate this planet so please go out and "know" your sister". Makes me feel like I started in Transexual Transylvania {cue the elbow sex  }. ------------------ "Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-15-2002 11:31 PM | | Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied |
|
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3242 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: 03-19-2002
|
Duplicate of previous message, content deleted - Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-16-2002]
|
nos482
Inactive Member
|
Originally posted by Wordswordsman: WS: Actually it's a little more complicated than that. In every male/female cell there is a complete set of identical X chromosomes. A sex cell (sperm/egg) has one half of the ("X"/"Y") contributed. Meiosis involves a random choosing of genes from the two halves of the parent's chromosomes, producing a random mix of genes, each sex cell a completely unique creation. When combined in reproduction, the resultant child is the product of mixing four grandparents' genes. We all know all about that, don't we? What, you had to look that up? That said, let's try to straighten out your apparent misunderstanding of Hebrew lineage reckoning. Citizen rights among them was entirely based on the lineage of the males, resulting in accounting only for male progeny except in matters of cultural interest. Irrelevant, Adam and Eve were not exactly Hebrews. Thee is a big reason for that system. In the beginning there were two seeds, that of Adam and that of Eve. In all fairness, the responsibility for the original sin fell upon Adam who was the one of two who received the one and only law from God before Eve was even made. How could they have known what sin was, or what right and wrong were? These concepts didn't exist to them before they ate of the apple. To disobey what "god" said and the possible consequences had no real meaning to them either. They were set up. Would you throw your children out into the streets naked and ignorant the very first time they may have disobeyed you? You would be arrested as a unfit parent. All responsibility falls on the male. When he failed to enforce it, his sin was reckoned against his seed (lineage), not that of the woman. So, if your great-grand father was sent to prison for a crime you should continue his sentence? That is why the Bible has the sins of the fathers falling on the sons for several generations, in fact to all his descendants. So it was that God could legally make entry into the human family through the untainted seed of the woman, mixed with the seed of God Himself. In that sense only is there any biblical disagreement with genetics. That is why it is complete nonsense. WS: That is not a reasonable statement based on any fact, making a poor question. The Bible just doesn't state how many people had been born into the world before Cain was exiled. Because there were no others. It seems more logical to assume the first 4 chapters of Genesis spanned several decades, and we already know females were hardly ever listed in geneologies anyway. Speculation. WS: Where did you get that? The Bible says Adam was made a MAN, not a boy, and the pair was commanded to reproduce. Only children as in no other siblings. WS: Your opinion. I'm going by what the Bible actually says, and making inference from the patterns of many Scriptures that support my speculations. Speculation based on speculation. For the purposes of this post, your belief "all" is only speculation is both wrong and moot. I began with Scripture to supply the KNOWN, then made inferences based on the known stated and not stated, but referred to in general. If you need the posting of the geneologies and verses demonstrating the principles referred to, I suppose I could paste it in for you, but the post would be quite large. You are still just guessing. WS: "Only" assuming? I gave the reference concerning the age of Adam. That is not an assumption, but a statement from the Book of Genesis accepted literally by millions of people, no doubt thousands of scholars throughout thousands of years. So was the belief that the Earth was flat as well. Just because people believe something without any real facts still doesn't make it true. The Genesis geneologies clearly state the ages of Adam's descendants, both when their sons were born, and when they died. I make no assumptions about that. Why exxagerate my post? Because it is fantasy. The very long life spans are Bible fact. They are myth. Bible facts are not the same as real facts. Bats are not birds just because they can fly and whales are not fish just because they live in the ocean. Science has not disproven any of that. Yes they have disproven it by studying the fossil record and the like. Bible archeologists are turning up massive evidences of the accuracy of Bible statements, confirmed in the ancient writings cultures other than the Hebrews. The Bible teaches that the original sin and the continued proliferation of sin is responsible for disease, death, deterioration of Creation. Every generation suffered more and more until the life expectancies did in fact reach the deplorable limits you mention. Only modern technology has improved on that so pitifully compared to the long healthy lives once enjoyed before the Flood. Just because the bible contains actually peoples and places still doesn't mean that these other things are true. We still do this today to make a story more relevant to those it is being told to. Look at Homer's epic poem the Iliad and the Odyssey. They used it to find the lost city of Troy. Does this mean that everything else in it is true as well? WS: Understanding scientific genetics and conforming to evolutionary explanations are two very different things. Let me jump to that last statement. I am a member of the Order of Man, specifically now of the family of God as a Christian, not of the primates. We are so closely related to some of the other primates, such as chimps, that we share the same blood types and can also share blood with little or no filtering. The primates were made before Adam was made. Adam was a specially created class of being all alone in his own order, that of MAN, after the image and likeness of God. Wrong. The evidence says otherwise. But than again you belive that women were made from a man. If you knew human biology you would see just how ridiculous that is, unless you have functioning nipples. No animal was so created. The plants were made, then the animals to eat them, then man to dominate all of that. Plant-Animal-Man. Very simple. Man is a member of the animal kingdom. This is what makes man an animal. Animal:
1. A living organism characterized by voluntary movement I don't know of a single geneticist who would say an organism would reproduce by combining sex cells outside the demanding constraints of each particular species. There is no inter-species reproduction. Just like most creationists you don't have a clue about what evolution is all about. You seem to think that a new form of life just springs up over night. I still have a problem reconciling your 40 couple requirement. How did the original 40 arise if the changes were very slow and subtle? All 40 would have to be present in one generation simultaneously for them to begin your healthy genome. It is not really all the complex a concept. There is a gradual change, not a sudden one as you seem to believe there is. I don't buy it. There would have to have been simultaneous random changes in many humanoid individuals, each set of changes following a random course of collective benefit, yet remaining each and every one of the same species, else reproduction would fail between them. Look, I don't believe in evolution at all, and am not interested in that, lacking a good foundation in "evolutionary biology", geology, paleontology, astrophysics, etc.. That is why you can only be wrong in your belief. WS: The Bible says otherwise. It predated your belief, and will survive long past it. You impose a belief not proven, that our ancestors evolved. They allegedly evolved. Your 'explanation', a theory, says they evolved, based on certain supportive evidences. Your choice of explanation is subject to constant alterations as history reveals, in keeping with more sophisticated science methods. My explanation from the Bible is a survivor of time and is eternal, not subject to alteration. So why make such a definite statement you can't prove? Do you subscribe to the notion "evolution is a fact"? Please, it is so much a proven fact that even the Roman Catholic Church had to accept it as such. And we all know how hard it is to get them to admitt when they are wrong. It took them centuries to pardon Galileo. It is only a few, like you, who don't accept it as such. There are even some who still believe that the Earth is flat as well. What you believe is in the same league as that. You remind me of that forest ranger on the New Red Green Show. You've been in the woods far too long. BTW, Hinduism predates Christianity and Judaism. It is considered to be the oldest living religion. The bible has been edited and revised many times. It has only been around as a whole for about 1700 years and at first contained 80 books to the now 66. Also, the current bible is so filled with contradictions and errors that it is funny. And I'm not speaking of the scrolls and manuscripts it may have been based on either. The vast majority of Christians, in the world, have been taught from it for centuries and not the scrolls and manuscripts. Most don't even know that that even exist, they are irrelevant. To them all they know is what is told to them out of bibles such as the KJV. Plus there are now also many different versions floating around as well. If one were to write a biology exam based on the "facts" in the bible one would be put back a few grades.  I don't think geneticists actually know more than the tip of the mountain of DNA knowledge that will probably take centuries to master, if ever. It will require very narrow specialties to break the project up into manageable parts, that in itself keeping any one person from comprehending the entire thing. They're learning new things about our DNA everyday now. Did you read that link I sent you? [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]
|
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member
|
I don't know why any Christian would avoid that issue. It is elementary. The first and only law revealed to man (Adam) was this one: Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: [17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. That law was soon violated, introducing spiritual death of the soul into the human family. The next serious act was carried out by Cain, in the murder of his brother. However, since there was no law against murder, God couldn't exact the death penalty on him. The only just thing to do was to separate Cain from his immediate family lest none remain. God exiled Cain to the place Cain called Nod. Still, God set no law against murder in motion, no death penalty. Sin was already imputed to the human family through Adam, sufficient to condemn all descendants of Adam throughout all their generations even now. It wasn't until Moses received the Law that many things were officially declared sin, such as "knowing" one's sister, called incest. Until the law condemned it no man could be condemned for it more than already condemned through the original, imputed sin. Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Sin got out of hand, requiring the adding of the law. Until then incest was not unlawful, not condemned by God. It appears from Scriptures that sin was not as predominate among the earliest generations and among the latter before the Flood. The Bible says men waxed worse as time went on. It is reasonable that there was not yet any idea of fornication in the sin sense. A man neeed a wife like Adam had a wife, and the only choice was a fairly close relative until strangers began to emerge from long lost wanderers coming back into range. It would have been the natural thing to do then. By the time of Moses and the Exodus, however, the earth was well into repopulation, and sin was on the rise again following the Flood, so we can consider the issue of a man taking a sister to wife then both unnecessary and probably accompanied by an improper sinful attitude, "caught" from other sinners nearby. Sinfulness grows among sinners, passed around like a cold, rarely originated by each individual. The issue of "incest" became sinful, but obviously the original concept didn't begin as sin.
|
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 51 of 165 (17503)
09-16-2002 1:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by nos482
09-15-2002 7:49 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman: WS: Actually it's a little more complicated than that. In every male/female cell there is a complete set of identical X chromosomes. A sex cell (sperm/egg) has one half of the ("X"/"Y") contributed. Meiosis involves a random choosing of genes from the two halves of the parent's chromosomes, producing a random mix of genes, each sex cell a completely unique creation. When combined in reproduction, the resultant child is the product of mixing four grandparents' genes. We all know all about that, don't we? What, you had to look that up? WS: I've answered that one maybe a few dozen times this year alone. It's memorized. Did I get it right? That said, let's try to straighten out your apparent misunderstanding of Hebrew lineage reckoning. Citizen rights among them was entirely based on the lineage of the males, resulting in accounting only for male progeny except in matters of cultural interest. Irrelevant, Adam and Eve were not exactly Hebrews. WS: Of course not. But it was a Hebrew (Moses) who recorded the Pentateuch. The geneology of Hebrews required a link all the way back to Adam through Seth through Abraham to guarantee Hebrew lineage.* There is a big reason for that system. In the beginning there were two seeds, that of Adam and that of Eve. In all fairness, the responsibility for the original sin fell upon Adam who was the one of two who received the one and only law from God before Eve was even made. How could they have known what sin was, or what right and wrong were?
These concepts didn't exist to them before they ate of the apple. To disobey what "god" said and the possible consequences had no real meaning to them either. They were set up. WS: There was but the one law from God delivered to Adam before Eve came along. No eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Very simple command, easy to understand. It was fair and square. God did his part, Adam decided to contradict it. No excuse.* Would you throw your children out into the streets naked and ignorant the very first time they may have disobeyed you? You would be arrested as a unfit parent. WS: Your arguments are irrelated to the issue. Adam was not a child needing to be raised up. He was a full adult ready for a wife about the time he was first given the one law from God. There is a greater "law of God", in existence then, but God only revealed the one law of the Garden. There is no relationship between your comment and what the Bible declares.* All responsibility falls on the male. When he failed to enforce it, his sin was reckoned against his seed (lineage), not that of the woman. So, if your great-grand father was sent to prison for a crime you should continue his sentence? WS: I see your misunderstanding now. Sin lifestyles of fathers do affect the sons for 3-4 generations. That has nothing to do with the imputed sin ushered in through Adam. Before he sinned against God there was no sin anywhere in the world. When Adam sinned, sin entered like a disease, spreading through the human family as quickly as it formed. It was unleashed. Adam is the responsible actor for letting it in. One in, it stayed, affecting all his descendants. In that way it was Adam, not God, who did the condemning, beginning with a deliberate violation of a plainly revealed law in the Garden. Everyone suffers because of it, unable to escape its ravages without a savior. The plan for salvation was revealed along with the sentencing of the first couple, then developed through the ages, culminating in Jesus Christ.* That is why the Bible has the sins of the fathers falling on the sons for several generations, in fact to all his descendants. So it was that God could legally make entry into the human family through the untainted seed of the woman, mixed with the seed of God Himself. In that sense only is there any biblical disagreement with genetics. That is why it is complete nonsense. WS: That is another unbased opinion you are entitled to.* WS: That is not a reasonable statement based on any fact, making a poor question. The Bible just doesn't state how many people had been born into the world before Cain was exiled. Because there were no others. WS: Can you prove that? Until you can, the Bible stands true, self-proven, self-supported, backed by the testimony of many.* It seems more logical to assume the first 4 chapters of Genesis spanned several decades, and we already know females were hardly ever listed in geneologies anyway. Speculation. WS: Your comment is speculation. Mine are based on Bible statements and patterns that lead to logical conclusions. You speculate I am speculating. Your argument is much too remote now, for you failed to supply evidence I am ONLY speculating.* WS: Where did you get that? The Bible says Adam was made a MAN, not a boy, and the pair was commanded to reproduce. Only children as in no other siblings. WS: That makes no sense at all. You have no basis for it. It is pure speculation. Snipping out frivolous responses...* WS: "Only" assuming? I gave the reference concerning the age of Adam. That is not an assumption, but a statement from the Book of Genesis accepted literally by millions of people, no doubt thousands of scholars throughout thousands of years. So was the belief that the Earth was flat as well. Just because people believe something without any real facts still doesn't make it true. WS: The Bible doesn't teach a "flat earth". That concept was developed between philosophers before the Pentateuch was even written, in the beginning formation of the concept of "science". It was later pushed on the Bible by poor exegesis. The Bible revealed all along the truth of the earth, containing true knowledge, while some people believed otherwise. I think you have it all backwards.* The Genesis geneologies clearly state the ages of Adam's descendants, both when their sons were born, and when they died. I make no assumptions about that. Why exxagerate my post? Because it is fantasy. WS: Are there not rules in this place? You make too many unfounded assertions with no basis whatsoever. Pure opinion, unbelief. Simple unbelief with no foundation at all.* The very long life spans are Bible fact. They are myth. Bible facts are not the same as real facts. Bats are not birds just because they can fly and whales are not fish just because they live in the ocean. WS: Your basis? Nobody has ever disproven anything in the Bible, while Bible archeologists continue to verify many obscure events and facts. I suggest subscribing to Bible Archeology for a while. I'm also familiar with the many atheist sites that sport long lists of alleged contradictions in the Bible. All that I have seen so far have been debunked many times over through the years, including all of Burr's arguments. Practically all of that is poor exegesis, simple ignorance of the Bible, culture, and history.* Science has not disproven any of that. Yes they have disproven it by studying the fossil record and the like. WS: The fossil record is far too fragmented and incomplete to demonstrate anything other than a lot of organisms were fossilized under an unusual circumstance not likely to be repeated. The requirement of sudden burial and preservation sufficient to lithify bones over vast areas on earth is not a repeatable scenario. I think all those fossils came from the Global Flood era. Thre is no other geologic scenario that I know of that would explain how the world organisms were so preserved on a regular basis. The plot thickens when evolutionists try to claim the process was concurrent enough to record all the transitional specie developments over billions of years, when nowhere on earth are the conditions for large scale lithification present. Hence the need of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory to acount for that problem, figuring lithification occurred in widespread gaps of time between ideal conditions for the process, but preventing a continuous record of development, unless the two conveniently converged. By that I mean that lithification conditions conveniently occurred whenever transitions were in the making. ??? It appears to me that if there were gaps in development (PE) resulting in stasis, there would have been a continuation of litification conditions recording those periods of stasis. Since that isn't the case, PE believers appear doomed to assert the lithification process always coincided wo=ith resumption of transitional change. Messy.* Bible archeologists are turning up massive evidences of the accuracy of Bible statements, confirmed in the ancient writings cultures other than the Hebrews. The Bible teaches that the original sin and the continued proliferation of sin is responsible for disease, death, deterioration of Creation. Every generation suffered more and more until the life expectancies did in fact reach the deplorable limits you mention. Only modern technology has improved on that so pitifully compared to the long healthy lives once enjoyed before the Flood. Just because the bible contains actually peoples and places still doesn't mean that these other things are true. We still do this today to make a story more relevant to those it is being told to. WS: Disconnected again. Your comments are simple denials, hardly suitable in any debate. You need to supply some substance.* Look at Homer's epic poem the Iliad and the Odyssey. They used it to find the lost city of Troy. Does this mean that everything else in it is true as well? WS: Few things of those myths have been corroborated, not nearly enough to take most of Homer's works seriously. The Bible, however, has been corroborated sufficiently for any serious scholar to admit the uncorroborated parts are probably true. Just 30 minutes of searching Google under "Bible archeology" will support that statement. However, you will spend days trying to find much more than the Troy discovery linked to Homer. Big difference.* WS: Understanding scientific genetics and conforming to evolutionary explanations are two very different things. Let me jump to that last statement. I am a member of the Order of Man, specifically now of the family of God as a Christian, not of the primates. We are so closely related to some of the other primates, such as chimps, that we share the same blood types and can also share blood with little or no filtering. WS: So? We have a common Creator. Most blood is red. Deer blood is red, coyote blood is red. So its that of bears and birds. Why? Because of the purpose of blood to carry oxygen to cells. There are many similarities between most organisms. It is no mystery to me why primates would have more similarities than others, since many of their functions are similar. In fact, we share a common deficiency with apes and Guinea pigs, lacking one of four enzymes needed to synthesize vitamin C.
It appears to me that both apes and men have always had the mobility to get fruit from trees and obtain vitamin C naturally from other sources frequently enough to avoid scurvy.* The primates were made before Adam was made. Adam was a specially created class of being all alone in his own order, that of MAN, after the image and likeness of God. Wrong. The evidence says otherwise. But than again you belive that women were made from a man. If you knew human biology you would see just how ridiculous that is, unless you have functioning nipples. WS: No evidence exists to support your claim.* No animal was so created. The plants were made, then the animals to eat them, then man to dominate all of that. Plant-Animal-Man. Very simple. Man is a member of the animal kingdom.
This is what makes man an animal. Animal:
1. A living organism characterized by voluntary movement WS: All you have there is a purely secular definition making man of the animal kingdom based on movement. That doesn't negate the biblical revelation.* I don't know of a single geneticist who would say an organism would reproduce by combining sex cells outside the demanding constraints of each particular species. There is no inter-species reproduction. Just like most creationists you don't have a clue about what evolution is all about. You seem to think that a new form of life just springs up over night. WS: They did that in the Creation week, but not overnight. They all were created in the daylight. None have emerged since then.* I still have a problem reconciling your 40 couple requirement. How did the original 40 arise if the changes were very slow and subtle? All 40 would have to be present in one generation simultaneously for them to begin your healthy genome. It is not really all the complex a concept. There is a gradual change, not a sudden one as you seem to believe there is. WS: No change at all occurs, except from normal predictable genetic mixing that makes varieties, but never new species being formed.* I don't buy it. There would have to have been simultaneous random changes in many humanoid individuals, each set of changes following a random course of collective benefit, yet remaining each and every one of the same species, else reproduction would fail between them. Look, I don't believe in evolution at all, and am not interested in that, lacking a good foundation in "evolutionary biology", geology, paleontology, astrophysics, etc.. That is why you can only be wrong in your belief. WS: Should I assume you are an expert professional adept in all the applicable science fields, able to explain without flaw all the processes concerning evolution? If not, you are likely to be promoting lots of error. Passing on assumptions?* WS: The Bible says otherwise. It predated your belief, and will survive long past it. You impose a belief not proven, that our ancestors evolved. They allegedly evolved. Your 'explanation', a theory, says they evolved, based on certain supportive evidences. Your choice of explanation is subject to constant alterations as history reveals, in keeping with more sophisticated science methods. My explanation from the Bible is a survivor of time and is eternal, not subject to alteration. So why make such a definite statement you can't prove? Do you subscribe to the notion "evolution is a fact"? Please, it is so much a proven fact that even the Roman Catholic Church had to accept it as such. And we all know how hard it is to get them to admitt when they are wrong. It took them centuries to pardon Galileo. It is only a few, like you, who don't accept it as such. There are even some who still believe that the Earth is flat as well. What you believe is in the same league as that. You remind me of that forest ranger on the New Red Green Show. You've been in the woods far too long. WS: The RCC has joined in yet another heresy claiming it is wrong to proselyte among people of other religions, contrary to the clear Bible message. They are a heretical cult. What they admit about evolution has nothing to do with Christianity. The official RCC statement, however, declares belief in evolution to be considered personal and not something for Catholics to argue over. It's OK to believe it, OK not to believe it. The RCC is making no official direct statement of belief in evolution.* BTW, Hinduism predates Christianity and Judaism. It is considered to be the oldest living religion. WS: "The Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and written down about 600 B.C." http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/ Official websites for Hinduism contradict your statement.* The bible has been edited and revised many times. WS: You need to study that out better. Any translation from Hebrew or Greek had its problems with changing languages, and still does. However, sufficient lexicons of those original languages allow a check and balance to make it possible to spot errors in new versions.* It has only been around as a whole for about 1700 years and at first contained 80 books to the now 66. WS: According to yur date the Vedas came along 200 years after the OT. The Apocryphical books were written a few centuries after the last New Testament books were written, never regarded permanently as part of the original collection of 66. Even some of the present 66 were left off some official lists, but restored, not once including the Apocrypha, except in the Church of England. The RCC has them in a separate volume.* Also, the current bible is so filled with contradictions and errors that it is funny. And I'm not speaking of the scrolls and manuscripts it may have been based on either. The vast majority of Christians, in the world, have been taught from it for centuries and not the scrolls and manuscripts. Most don't even know that that even exist, they are irrelevant. To them all they know is what is told to them out of bibles such as the KJV. Plus there are now also many different versions floating around as well. WS: The prospect of dealing with each and every alleged contradiction is inviting, but too time consuming. Christians are forbidden to engage in such frivolity anyway. Enough has been published already to expose those lists of accusations, all proven false. The tendency of atheists is to quote those lists without ever looking into them for themselves. I think that is cowardly behavior. Toss out a bunch of accusations, see them all refuted, then toss out another batch without end, wearing down Christians. I think it is called "Christian-baiting". I'd rather point you to some sites that have already dealt with them one by one.* If one were to write a biology exam based on the "facts" in the bible one would be put back a few grades. WS: Although the central message of the Bible is the Fall and salvation of man, it does contain many true fats about biology unless the reader is prone to exegetical sloppiness. Not all statement revealed in the Bible are true knowledge, such as lies quoted of actors, and quotes from Job's friends. Folly is reported, but so is eternal truth, ultimate true knowledge.* I don't think geneticists actually know more than the tip of the mountain of DNA knowledge that will probably take centuries to master, if ever. It will require very narrow specialties to break the project up into manageable parts, that in itself keeping any one person from comprehending the entire thing. They're learning new things about our DNA everyday now. Did you read that link I sent you? WS: Yes. It appears the ancient historian Joesphus was pretty close in his estimate, adding sons and daughters the scientists have not traced yet. I think it will be made clear that the first couple could easily have birthed a few score children over nine centuries, making up a fine human genome of great vitality. Separations of populations preserved the gene pool quite well.* [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by nos482, posted 09-15-2002 7:49 PM | | nos482 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by nos482, posted 09-16-2002 9:05 AM | | Wordswordsman has replied |
|
nos482
Inactive Member
|
Originally posted by Wordswordsman: Please learn how to post. You don't have to include EVERYTHING when you reply. WS: Of course not. But it was a Hebrew (Moses) who recorded the Pentateuch. The geneology of Hebrews required a link all the way back to Adam through Seth through Abraham to guarantee Hebrew lineage.* Thery're is some evidence that the Books of Moses were not written by Moses himself. I.E. The inclusion of some kings which live after Moses' death. WS: There was but the one law from God delivered to Adam before Eve came along. No eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Very simple command, easy to understand. It was fair and square. God did his part, Adam decided to contradict it. No excuse.* What is law? Adam wouldn't have understood the concept. How could he have made such a decision? First he would have had to know the difference between right and wrong and to do that he would have had to eat of the apple. Did you toss out your children into the street the first time they had disobyed you? Are you an unfit parent? WS: Your arguments are irrelated to the issue. Adam was not a child needing to be raised up. Maybe not, but the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong were alien concepts to him. He was a full adult ready for a wife about the time he was first given the one law from God. There was no sex (no need) in the garden before the apple. So, the concept of a wife was irrelevant as well. There is a greater "law of God", in existence then, but God only revealed the one law of the Garden. There is no relationship between your comment and what the Bible declares.* That is because I have shown the flaw in the myth of Adam and Eve. WS: I see your misunderstanding now. Sin lifestyles of fathers do affect the sons for 3-4 generations. That has nothing to do with the imputed sin ushered in through Adam. Sin is a religious concept and has no relation to morality and the real world. Before he sinned against God there was no sin anywhere in the world. When Adam sinned, sin entered like a disease, spreading through the human family as quickly as it formed. It was unleashed. Adam is the responsible actor for letting it in. One in, it stayed, affecting all his descendants. In that way it was Adam, not God, who did the condemning, beginning with a deliberate violation of a plainly revealed law in the Garden. Everyone suffers because of it, unable to escape its ravages without a savior. The plan for salvation was revealed along with the sentencing of the first couple, then developed through the ages, culminating in Jesus Christ.* It is cruel to blame others for the action of one. WS: That is another unbased opinion you are entitled to.* It is much more than an opinion and it is far from being biased. WS: Can you prove that? Until you can, the Bible stands true, self-proven, self-supported, backed by the testimony of many.* Can you prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? WS: Your comment is speculation. Mine are based on Bible statements and patterns that lead to logical conclusions. You speculate I am speculating. Your argument is much too remote now, for you failed to supply evidence I am ONLY speculating.* That is like saying that you base you opinions on Grimes Fairy Tales. WS: That makes no sense at all. You have no basis for it. It is pure speculation. Snipping out frivolous responses...* Ok, where in the bible does it meantion their siblings by name? WS: The Bible doesn't teach a "flat earth". That concept was developed between philosophers before the Pentateuch was even written, in the beginning formation of the concept of "science". It was later pushed on the Bible by poor exegesis. The Bible revealed all along the truth of the earth, containing true knowledge, while some people believed otherwise. I think you have it all backwards.* Matthew 4:1-12 Daniel 4:10-11 Isaiah 40:18-23 Isaiah 22:18 http://members.aol.com/jalw/flat_earth.html WS: Are there not rules in this place? You make too many unfounded assertions with no basis whatsoever. Pure opinion, unbelief. Simple unbelief with no foundation at all.* So, you are losing and now you want to go whining to the mods. WS: Your basis? Nobody has ever disproven anything in the Bible, while Bible archeologists continue to verify many obscure events and facts. So, you do believe that bats are birds? I suggest subscribing to Bible Archeology for a while. Do you have an unbiased reference instead? I'm also familiar with the many atheist sites that sport long lists of alleged contradictions in the Bible. All that I have seen so far have been debunked many times over through the years, including all of Burr's arguments. Practically all of that is poor exegesis, simple ignorance of the Bible, culture, and history.* That is because they mainly went back to the scrolls and manuscripts, but they are irrelevant in this context. Most Christians are not taught the bible in Hebrew or even Aramaic. WS: The fossil record is far too fragmented and incomplete to demonstrate anything other than a lot of organisms were fossilized under an unusual circumstance not likely to be repeated. The requirement of sudden burial and preservation sufficient to lithify bones over vast areas on earth is not a repeatable scenario. I think all those fossils came from the Global Flood era. That isn't what I had meant. You can tell the age at death and gender by look at bones, even fossilized bones. Thre is no other geologic scenario that I know of that would explain how the world organisms were so preserved on a regular basis. There is no evidence at all for a recent global flood. WS: Disconnected again. Your comments are simple denials, hardly suitable in any debate. You need to supply some substance.* You really shouldn't talk to yourself like that. WS: Few things of those myths have been corroborated, not nearly enough to take most of Homer's works seriously. The Bible, however, has been corroborated sufficiently for any serious scholar to admit the uncorroborated parts are probably true. Please, that is a load. Just 30 minutes of searching Google under "Bible archeology" will support that statement. However, you will spend days trying to find much more than the Troy discovery linked to Homer. Big difference.* Do you have any unbiased sources? WS: So? We have a common Creator. Most blood is red. Deer blood is red, coyote blood is red. So its that of bears and birds. Why? Blood is red because it is based on iron and oxyidizes when exposed to the air. When it is not it is blue. Because of the purpose of blood to carry oxygen to cells. There are many similarities between most organisms. It is no mystery to me why primates would have more similarities than others, since many of their functions are similar. In fact, we share a common deficiency with apes and Guinea pigs, lacking one of four enzymes needed to synthesize vitamin C.
It appears to me that both apes and men have always had the mobility to get fruit from trees and obtain vitamin C naturally from other sources frequently enough to avoid scurvy.* Many other animals eat the same fruit as well and they don't have the same blood types. Color of blood has nothing to do with it. WS: No evidence exists to support your claim.* We have many female features. Plus during the early stages of a pregnancy we are all female. WS: All you have there is a purely secular definition making man of the animal kingdom based on movement. That doesn't negate the biblical revelation.* Yes, it does. WS: They did that in the Creation week, but not overnight. They all were created in the daylight. None have emerged since then.* Which creation account? WS: No change at all occurs, except from normal predictable genetic mixing that makes varieties, but never new species being formed.* You really don't have a clue? WS: Should I assume you are an expert professional adept in all the applicable science fields, able to explain without flaw all the processes concerning evolution? If not, you are likely to be promoting lots of error. Passing on assumptions?* I don't have to be. There is more than enough credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence which does show that evolution is a fact. No such evidence exists for creationism. WS: The RCC has joined in yet another heresy claiming it is wrong to proselyte among people of other religions, contrary to the clear Bible message. They are a heretical cult. The RCC is the oldest Church in Christianity and the vast majority of Christians are Catholic, so by definition you are the one who is a memeber of a heretical cult. What they admit about evolution has nothing to do with Christianity. The official RCC statement, however, declares belief in evolution to be considered personal and not something for Catholics to argue over. It's OK to believe it, OK not to believe it. The RCC is making no official direct statement of belief in evolution.* They did say that it was a fact. WS: "The Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and written down about 600 B.C." http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/ The bible was written down almost 1700 years ago. WS: You need to study that out better. Any translation from Hebrew or Greek had its problems with changing languages, and still does. However, sufficient lexicons of those original languages allow a check and balance to make it possible to spot errors in new versions.* Irrelevant. Most Christians are not bible scholars and know nothing of this. WS: The prospect of dealing with each and every alleged contradiction is inviting, but too time consuming. Christians are forbidden to engage in such frivolity anyway. How convenient. Enough has been published already to expose those lists of accusations, all proven false. All assumptions. WS: Although the central message of the Bible is the Fall and salvation of man, it does contain many true fats about biology unless the reader is prone to exegetical sloppiness. Not all statement revealed in the Bible are true knowledge, such as lies quoted of actors, and quotes from Job's friends. Folly is reported, but so is eternal truth, ultimate true knowledge.* Meaningless babble. WS: Yes. It appears the ancient historian Joesphus was pretty close in his estimate, adding sons and daughters the scientists have not traced yet. Did you look at the time scales involved? They are far longer than your 6000 years. And they are different lines, not necessarily closely related either. It is clear that it is useless to argue with you since you are what is call a TRUE believer and nothing will steer you from the belief in your myths and stories. It is a good thing that you are in a minority and mostly irrelevant. You mostly just worth a good laugh in your willful ignorance. You rather believe in a popular myth than in an unpopular truth. You just have your bible, I have the rest of the planet.
|
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 53 of 165 (17537)
09-16-2002 12:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by nos482
09-16-2002 9:05 AM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B] Originally posted by Wordswordsman: Thery're is some evidence that the Books of Moses were not written by Moses himself. I.E. The inclusion of some kings which live after Moses' death. WS: There is no evidence against the authorship of Moses. Men have tried to attack that for millennia, stopped by Hebrew scholars in every generation. People who spent their entire lives mastering the Torah have successfully defended it to the last jot and tittle. When you pass along those false accusations, you have no credibility at all when you leave off the specific reference. I won't chase around through dozens of skeptic websites. I've already been there and already refuted hundreds of claims which are mostly due to poor comprehension or omission of associated Scripture fact. Copy/paste if you must. One at a time please. However, if and when I demonstrate false accusation, please have the decency to acknowledge your error. WS: Your arguments are irrelated to the issue. Adam was not a child needing to be raised up. Maybe not, but the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong were alien concepts to him. WS: So where did that come from? That directly contradicts the Bible account, without a shred of support. Again, it appears to be ill- thought opinion. What value is it? How could Adam not have ANY concept of right and wrong after being told this from the start: Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: [17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. All the necessary elements are there. A command, not a suggestion; specific permission to eat of every tree except the one; a warning of death for disobedience. He was a full adult ready for a wife about the time he was first given the one law from God. There was no sex (no need) in the garden before the apple. So, the concept of a wife was irrelevant as well. WS: Again, pure speculation. There is no mention of Adam being altered to add sex organs, no changes announced for Eve, except for addition of pain to childbirth. Secondly, before the forbidden fruit (it doesn't mention an apple) was taken, God had this to say about Adam even before Eve was made: Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis 2:22-24 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. [23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. [24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. The "one flesh" is clearly identified elsewhere as the relationship consumated through sexual union. There is no other purpose stated for the sex organs supplied in the original creation, other than reproduction. WHEN God made Eve he commanded both of them: Genesis 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Chapter one is the abstract of creation, while chapter two adds interesting detail that reviews Adam's existence between his creation and some details of the making of Eve. But the command for reproduction came before the Fall in chapter one. What other means of human reproduction, if as you claim sex was not required? You apparently need to review your biology lessons. There is a greater "law of God", in existence then, but God only revealed the one law of the Garden. There is no relationship between your comment and what the Bible declares.* That is because I have shown the flaw in the myth of Adam and Eve. WS: You have only shown the flaws in your own thought process. WS: I see your misunderstanding now. Sin lifestyles of fathers do affect the sons for 3-4 generations. That has nothing to do with the imputed sin ushered in through Adam. Sin is a religious concept and has no relation to morality and the real world. WS: "Sin" is already defined and 'set in stone', so your futile attempt to redefine sin and morality is pointless. 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Morality in the western culture is definitely centered around the biblical concept of sin. Without knowledge of sin there can be no morality that would sustain any significant civilization for very long. Sin can't be ignored as though it doesn't exist. People who deny its existence should never lock their doors when away, should never fail to pass their credit cards out to strangers for safe-keeping. If you believe there are strangers who might use that card without permission, then you believe in the concept of sin. The tenets of sinfulness shape the parameters of morality. Morality could be thought of as the charter of behavior that avoids sin, going on to encourage righteous behavior, the opposite of sin. It is cruel to blame others for the action of one. WS: I'm trying to eliminate some previous text per your requrest, but your answers are often too disconnected from the topic. Here you claim cruelty. In the first place, there is no evidence of cruelty on God's part. His judgments are just. Secondly, God didn't blame any of Adam's descendants- Adam is to blame, and only Adam. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Death follows sinners. God doesn't have to sic death on them. No descendant of Adam can claim he never sinned at least as little as Adam did. All men sin, especially now that all the laws of God have been revealed, and all are accountable. Only one was sinless, the Christ, born of the seed of God. The coming and spread of sin is like a disease coming to our border through one emmigrant. That one person is to blame, but all who intercept the germ later suffer along with the emmigrant. Who is cruel, who else to blame? Not God, not subsequent carriers of the disease, except those deliberately claoking their potential, infecting others by choice or wilfull neglect. Theirs is the greater condemnation. WS: Can you prove that? Until you can, the Bible stands true, self-proven, self-supported, backed by the testimony of many.* Can you prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? WS: You can't prove YOU exist. No scientist or philosopher or anyone else has ever produced a bit of prood there is a "tooth fairy". Until someone does, that remains purely ficticious myth. That concept is obviously a false tale, having no basis whatsoever. The Bible, however, has been verified many ways, through writings of cultures that testify of event corroborations, existence of kings in order of occurrence, and many other means. Let me emphasize the average Buible believer takes the Bible by faith and retains a faith basis. Over time that faith basis is augmented through personal experience that the promises of the Bible are abundantly true, and the believer is treated to bits of physical evidence that shores up their faith even more. By now I have tasted too much of the goodness of God to easily doubt in a test. But if I fail a hard test, I know forgiveness is near, and the chance to believe more deeply will come back around. WS: Your comment is speculation. Mine are based on Bible statements and patterns that lead to logical conclusions. You speculate I am speculating. Your argument is much too remote now, for you failed to supply evidence I am ONLY speculating.* That is like saying that you base you opinions on Grimes Fairy Tales. WS: There is no relationship in that analogy. Grimes tales have never exhibited any verifyable corroboration. Secular historians and philosophers never supported the claims of those tales, but had no choice but to acknowledge the claims of the Bible. WS: That makes no sense at all. You have no basis for it. It is pure speculation. Snipping out frivolous responses...* Ok, where in the bible does it meantion their siblings by name? WS: I've already explained why the daughters are not named. It is part of the rule of Hebrew geneology. The FIRST born is often the only named sibling. Cain was the firstborn of Adam, so he is named even though excluded from promise. They couldn't avoid that. Abel was the next in line for the promised Messiah to come, but Cain killed him. Seth was born, being the only eligible substitute "first-born" of promise. From there on only the line of Seth is followed, disregarding the lineage of any other siblings. The only error you latch to is lack of understanding of geneological precepts that are thousands of years old. Keep in mind also you pointed me to a website where scientists have traced the human genome to 18 sons. Since you trust in science so exclusively, ask them to discover those names. It doesn't matter concerning the message of the Bible. WS: The Bible doesn't teach a "flat earth". That concept was developed between philosophers before the Pentateuch was even written, in the beginning formation of the concept of "science". It was later pushed on the Bible by poor exegesis. The Bible revealed all along the truth of the earth, containing true knowledge, while some people believed otherwise. I think you have it all backwards.* Matthew 4:1-12 Daniel 4:10-11 Isaiah 40:18-23 Isaiah 22:18 I assume you refer to Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; That is not the first time an angelic being was associated with visions, sometimes called "remote viewing", an event of the spirit realm. It says the devil TOOK Jesus up on an exceedingly high mountain. In another place it is called being "translated" to another place, as was Phillip. The identity of that mountain is not stated, possibly one in the spirit realm, a symbol of a high place in the lower heavenlies, sat upon by Satan, prince of the power of the air. There is no indication how long that trip lasted. If the place was like the mountain of God where his throne is now, it would be invisible to us, suspended over the ground. In one 24 hour period all the kingdoms of earth would have passed by below. But Jesus knew the earth and the cattle on its hills are the Lord's, not the property of the devil to give to anyone. Satan had usurped autority, and Jesus rejected it. Daniel 4:10-11 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. [11] The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: This is part of Nebuchadnezzar's spiritual vision, not describing a literal tree in view of all the earth. The great tree was interpreted by Daniel (renamed Belteshazzar by that king) as the great king himself, powerful over all the kingdoms without dispute. Your reference has nothing to do with a teaching or even a hint the earth was considered flat. Isa 40 has to do with yet unfiulfilled prophecy. You must be interested in Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: I take that as a definite teaching that the shape of the earth is circular, and that the Lord my God is able to sit upon it as a person might sit upon a ball. The Hebrew word was chuwg; from Hebrew 2328 (chuwg); a circle :- circle, circuit, compass. There is no claim there of a flat earth or circular disk. Men have interpreted it that way, but the Bible doesn't support that. I would hope those ancient interpretations long ago discarded are not still hindering you. Consider watching the NASA TV channel a few hours. You'll figure it out, and find yourself relaxed and able to reason better. Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. So where do you get a flat earth in there? WS: Are there not rules in this place? You make too many unfounded assertions with no basis whatsoever. Pure opinion, unbelief. Simple unbelief with no foundation at all.* So, you are losing and now you want to go whining to the mods. WS: Not at this point. Are you saying you prefer to ignore rules until forced to obey? That is characteristic of low morals IMHO. Any debate needs rules, else there is no settling of anything. If you continue denying without evidence contradicting, you waste my time and accomplish nothing yourself, being but a purveyor of falsehoods. WS: Your basis? Nobody has ever disproven anything in the Bible, while Bible archeologists continue to verify many obscure events and facts. So, you do believe that bats are birds? WS: Bats are flying mammals. They function as birds, do they not? Do they swim through water? No, they fly through the air with owls. I suggest subscribing to Bible Archeology for a while. Do you have an unbiased reference instead? WS: Can you run searches on the internet? Google is a great engine. There are hundreds of thousands of articles, mostly from secular archeologists, that add to the mountain of evidence. There are some Bible archeologists concentrating on recovery of relics important to the Believer. I can understand why you might avoid them, but, to do so requires interpretation of the works of secular scientists who are basically doing the same things, but just don't promote their conclusions too loudly. They might dig up something pertaining to an ancient ruler, make much of that, but fail to point out the Bible mentioned him in a correct chronology. Bible archeologists go out of their way to make those connections, saving us from missing the point. I'm also familiar with the many atheist sites that sport long lists of alleged contradictions in the Bible. All that I have seen so far have been debunked many times over through the years, including all of Burr's arguments. Practically all of that is poor exegesis, simple ignorance of the Bible, culture, and history.* That is because they mainly went back to the scrolls and manuscripts, but they are irrelevant in this context. Most Christians are not taught the bible in Hebrew or even Aramaic. WS: The committees that were charged with writing newer versions beginning with the KJV did that too. Most of those sources are rare and not readily available, and are individually fragmented, but collectively complete. It is no longer necessary to resort to them any more than you should seek to awaken Charles Darwin to confirm his writings for you. It is already known what those manuscripts say. The words were written down in lexicons. Many Christians do learn to use them to verify the interpretations of versions. I am doing that right now in answer to your post. I have several Hebrew and Greek lexicons on CD's for rapid reference to the actual letter characters and the accompanying translation to English, word for word, requiring reference to concordances or accepting the definitions already provided on the third line below the original text. It isn't necessary for me to directly read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. Many scholars have made it convenient for me. Do YOU read those languages directly? If not, why complain? WS: The fossil record is far too fragmented and incomplete to demonstrate anything other than a lot of organisms were fossilized under an unusual circumstance not likely to be repeated. The requirement of sudden burial and preservation sufficient to lithify bones over vast areas on earth is not a repeatable scenario. I think all those fossils came from the Global Flood era. That isn't what I had meant. You can tell the age at death and gender by look at bones, even fossilized bones. WS: Forensic scientists do that often. But it is a stretch to say the same processes apply to fossils. If you accept the measurement standards of secular scientists, then you can INFER dates from those fossils. It is all relative to presumptions the geologic column is correctly viewed. The original column was described in support of Global Flood terms. After Darwin that has been discarded to exclude any mention of the Flood. It appears to many creationists that the geologic column (sedimentary rock record in particular) represents events that occurred over the year of the Flood and the subsequent Ice Age period. No other explanation exists that would account for world-wide lithification processes of the magnitude known. Rapid burial in DEEP sediments was required, not conforming to the gradual processes of erosion over many unbroken epos. Under normal circumstances organisms deteriorate or are consumed upon death, hardly able to be preserved by mineralization. Thre is no other geologic scenario that I know of that would explain how the world organisms were so preserved on a regular basis. There is no evidence at all for a recent global flood. WS: Then we are stalemated. I say almost the entire geologic sedimentary record on the crust is mostly Flood-caused. There was no doubt some geologic event(s) prior to the Flood, as well as after it, but nothing to compare to what happened in Noah's time. WS: deleted spurious comment... Just 30 minutes of searching Google under "Bible archeology" will support that statement. However, you will spend days trying to find much more than the Troy discovery linked to Homer. Big difference.* Do you have any unbiased sources? WS: My favorite is http://rome.classics.lsa.umich.edu/welcome.html Get lost in history.  We have many female features. Plus during the early stages of a pregnancy we are all female. WS: Which is predictable since God took the female out of the male. In that He obviously assigned bodily functions that provided for childbearing/rearing in a similar fashion granted to many animals he also created. How could every person be technically female when the XY gene scenario is present in the ovum that would produce a male? "The Y chromosome has become a genetic junkyard because it does not recombine -- recombination is the swapping of DNA that occurs between paired chromosomes when eggs and sperm are made." Nature - Not Found BTW, that article supports the notion of a gradual devolution of creation, a deterioration of the human gnome. I realize it was written to support evolution, but IMHO damages the case. Sin has resulted in the deterioration of the Y chromosome, with the loss of genetic material. Evolution would not predict the scenario presented in that article. My point in this reference is proof your opinion humans are all female in early pregnancy is false. About half are. WS: Deleted unfounded opinions, useless comment.... WS: The RCC has joined in yet another heresy claiming it is wrong to proselyte among people of other religions, contrary to the clear Bible message. They are a heretical cult. The RCC is the oldest Church in Christianity and the vast majority of Christians are Catholic, so by definition you are the one who is a memeber of a heretical cult. WS: History is replete with evidence there were groups of bible believers that opposed the direction of the group that became RCC. Then came the Protestant Reformation and its rejection of RCC, carrying some RCC liturgical habits with them, and retaining some doctrinal beliefs common to all. The RCC says all others who didn't follow them are the heretics. True believers are not influenced by their opinion since theirs contradicts biblical teachings. Subsequent moves of God in the true Church has made the Body of Christ quite strong in spite of the interferences of the RCC and its many members. The RCC is nothing like the first century Church, having departed into ttraditions of men to form a populist movement using the name of Christ. What they admit about evolution has nothing to do with Christianity. The official RCC statement, however, declares belief in evolution to be considered personal and not something for Catholics to argue over. It's OK to believe it, OK not to believe it. The RCC is making no official direct statement of belief in evolution.* They did say that it was a fact.' WS: "To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Catholics and Evolution I left out much VERY interesting comment (official I might add) that refutes evolution, but other documents command Catholics not to castigate one another over the issue.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by nos482, posted 09-16-2002 9:05 AM | | nos482 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by John, posted 09-16-2002 3:14 PM | | Wordswordsman has replied | | | Message 55 by nos482, posted 09-16-2002 3:51 PM | | Wordswordsman has replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: There is no evidence against the authorship of Moses.
The evidence against it is overwhelming.
quote:
When you pass along those false accusations, you have no credibility at all when you leave off the specific reference.
Agreed. How is this one?
Gerald Larue Otll Chap3 » Internet Infidels quote:
I won't chase around through dozens of skeptic websites.
Right... you'll only chase around through dozens of apologetic sites then? Very balanced.
quote:
I've already been there and already refuted hundreds of claims which are mostly due to poor comprehension or omission of associated Scripture fact.
quote:
When you pass along those false accusations, you have no credibility at all when you leave off the specific reference.
quote:
Maybe not, but the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong were alien concepts to him. WS: So where did that come from? That directly contradicts the Bible account, without a shred of support.
Adam had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How then is it that he HAD knowledge of good and evil?
quote:
There is no mention of Adam being altered to add sex organs, no changes announced for Eve, except for addition of pain to childbirth.
Which pain she suffered because of Adam's sin. Men are always the responsible party, if you are to be believed.
quote:
Genesis 2:18
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
You forgot this one:
quote:
Genesis 1:26 And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’
27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
You have several inplicit problems there. 1)God is refering to theirselves as plural. (The 'royal we' did not exist until much later) 2)Adam and Eve were created at the same time, hence Adam would have never been alone. This too screws with the whole rib story. 3)The order is wrong. It doesn't mesh with the order of the other version of creation. 4)In the Hebrew, the words used for 'them' (as in 'created he them') are masculine plural in both cases. This is very good news for like-gender lovers.
quote:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Oh... here it is. You just failed to bring it up when it conflicted with your other passage.
quote:
Chapter one is the abstract of creation, while chapter two adds interesting detail that reviews Adam's existence between his creation and some details of the making of Eve.
BS... you cannot construct a logical sequence of events in which all statements in both versions of creation are 1)included, 2)in order relative to the version in which the event is found, 3)and which does not cause conflicts in the final compiled version.
quote:
WS: "Sin" is already defined and 'set in stone', so your futile attempt to redefine sin and morality is pointless.
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Of course, definitions are meaningless unless you believe the dictionary. Why do Christians not understand that?
quote:
Without knowledge of sin there can be no morality that would sustain any significant civilization for very long.
Sorry, but you don't need a concept of sin to create and hold a society together. All you need is common sense. The concept of sin is superflous.
quote:
WS: Can you prove that? Until you can, the Bible stands true, self-proven, self-supported, backed by the testimony of many.*
Self-proven and self-supported are by default invalid. Its called circular reasoning. Backed by testimony is a fallacy called an appeal to popularity-- argumentum ad populum.
quote:
The Bible, however, has been verified many ways, through writings of cultures that testify of event corroborations, existence of kings in order of occurrence, and many other means.
In your own words:
quote:
When you pass along those false accusations, you have no credibility at all when you leave off the specific reference.
quote:
Copy/paste if you must. One at a time please. However, if and when I demonstrate false accusation, please have the decency to acknowledge your error.
[quote]Over time that faith basis is augmented through personal experience that the promises of the Bible are abundantly true, and the believer is treated to bits of physical evidence that shores up their faith even more.[quote]
People have a very hard time with causality, in general. People take coincidence as being meaningful and can't calculate probability to save thier souls. This is essentially why people keep gambling even though they are losing. It may make you feel better, but it proves nothing.
quote:
Secular historians and philosophers never supported the claims of those tales, but had no choice but to acknowledge the claims of the Bible.
No choice? This makes no sense. There are a few very shaky external bits of evidence that supports a couple of minor points mentioned in the Bible. That is it. And this is to be expected. The Isrealites were not living in a vacuum. That they existed is not the same as proving that there God existed, or that their religion is the one true faith. Show me your secular evidence. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
nos482
Inactive Member
|
I'm not going to reply to you anymore. It is too much work for very little return. Please learn how to post, you are including the entire post when it is unneccessary.
|
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 56 of 165 (17551)
09-16-2002 8:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by John
09-16-2002 3:14 PM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B] quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: There is no evidence against the authorship of Moses.
The evidence against it is overwhelming. WS: Only theories, no evidence at all, just accusations based on ignorance.
Gerald Larue Otll Chap3 » Internet Infidels WS: I've already been through all of that elsewhere. The main argument seems to be this verse: Genesis 36:31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. There is no discrepancy in it. When Moses wrote Genesis there were no as yet kings reigning over Israel as in other nations, but there were kings over Edom. While still in Egypt Israel grew large enough to warrant kings, so God told Moses they would have a king. God also told Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that kings would come from them, so having kings for Israel was in the mind of God this far back (Genesis 17:6,16; Genesis 35:11). Moses spoke in his law of the time when Israel would have kings and gave the manner of the kingdom in Deut. 17:14-20; Deut. 28:36.
quote:
I won't chase around through dozens of skeptic websites.
Right... you'll only chase around through dozens of apologetic sites then? Very balanced. WS: I've already been all over many of those unbeliever sites chasing down the misunderstandings. In the past atheists kept me bogged down with dozens of false statements they call Bible errors, every day, making it impossible to do anything but answer false accusations. NEVER is there any acknowledgement of the answers, characteristic of unbelievers owing no courtesy to anyone. I learned to stop playing the game, since it soes no good whatsoever. There are hundreds of so-called erors, all of them answered quite well over the years, which helped me deal with them. Several preachers online have noticed my involvement and have warned I'm really not supposed to engage in such foolishness with non/unbelievers. They are right, in that I should not answer a fool on his level. So I take on a few of your pet charges, deal with them to let you know you are spitting in the wind, then move on to more productive discussions. There are no errors in the Bible, the Word of God. Adam had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How then is it that he HAD knowledge of good and evil? WS: He had all God wanted him to have in that one commandment not to eat of that tree. One commandment was all Adam had. He had knowledge of evil by direct command from God, a better alternative to gaining ALL knowledge of good and evil at once. There were no laws prohibiting murder, theft, or any other evil since in the absense of laws there was no sin charged. It was bad enough the sin of Adam was imputed to the sons. Sin is transgression of the law. Until Adam took of the fruit he had no further need of knowledge of evil in the absense of laws covering them, and even didn't need to have knowledge of good. All he needed was fellowship with God. For that matter, the laws covering additional sins committed didn't emerge for some time except for the one where God commanded that anyone that killed Cain would receice vengeance 7 fold. Murder in general was still not a sin covered by the law. The law was added when sin accumulated to the point law was necessary. The law was delayed because it brings bondage.
quote:
There is no mention of Adam being altered to add sex organs, no changes announced for Eve, except for addition of pain to childbirth.
Which pain she suffered because of Adam's sin. Men are always the responsible party, if you are to be believed. WS: Men suffered too, having to work hard in a cursed ground. God later lifted that curse in Gen 8:21. After the Flood the ground was released to produce its bounty. Eve deceived Adam, listening to the serpent, and deserved punishment. She was to blame for the pain of childbirth to continue until the curse is lifted in the New Earth. On her came the curse of spiritual death along with Adam and all their descendants. They both died spiritually that fateful day. All are born spiritually dead until made alive in Christ. Before Christ came people were saved through simple acts of faith, having righteousness imputed to them.
quote:
Genesis 2:18
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
You forgot this one:
quote:
Genesis 1:26 And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’
27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
You have several inplicit problems there. 1)God is refering to theirselves as plural. (The 'royal we' did not exist until much later) WS: I offered that one earlier, but Nos couldn't handle it. The plural is correct. We call the Godhead a "trinity". The Father, Son, and Spirit are without beginning or end. They are eternally self-existent, three distinct Persons, unified as the One God. One can't claim the entirity of the Godhead over the others. All three have manifested together, at the baptism of Jesus. The Son stood in the Jordan, the Father spoke from Heaven, and the Spirit descended on Jesus. 2)Adam and Eve were created at the same time, hence Adam would have never been alone. This too screws with the whole rib story. WS: You make the common error of not recognizing the outline method of Genesis chapters one and two. Both cover the same creation week, one in summary, one in more detail concerning Adam and Eve. An illiterate person might fail to grasp the literary style there, but millions do not miss it. 3)The order is wrong. It doesn't mesh with the order of the other version of creation. WS: Outline it. You are missing it. Chapter 2 isn't a day by day rehash of the sequence of chapter one. It concentrats on other details without contradicting anything. 4)In the Hebrew, the words used for 'them' (as in 'created he them') are masculine plural in both cases. This is very good news for like-gender lovers. WS: Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The Hebrew for male/female is zakar/neqebah. That doesn't fit your take.
quote:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Oh... here it is. You just failed to bring it up when it conflicted with your other passage.
quote:
Chapter one is the abstract of creation, while chapter two adds interesting detail that reviews Adam's existence between his creation and some details of the making of Eve.
BS... you cannot construct a logical sequence of events in which all statements in both versions of creation are 1)included, 2)in order relative to the version in which the event is found, 3)and which does not cause conflicts in the final compiled version. WS: Read it again. Chapter one is a day by day account covering major segments of nature being created. I realize viruses, etc, were left out. It wasn't the intent there to list everything created. Ch. 1 Day 1: day and night. Day 2: separation between earth, atmoshphere, and the outer heavens. Day 3: land raised, oceans lowered, vegetation started. Day 4: Moon, planets, stars created in adition to the sun already separating day and night, the moon and stars ruling by night. Day 5: Marine life and winged flying creatures, commanded to multiply. Day 6: Earth dwelling creatures, followed by man, then woman. Ch. 2 1. Summary of the finishing in chapter one, and the day of rest. 2. Recap: Heavens & earth made. 3. Verse 4 says the preceding was the Heb. towledah, or history of the creation, up through day 7. 4. Plant discussion. Already made in Day 3, the plants grow and multiply. No rain, but a mist arose to water plants. 5. Jumping to day 6. Mention of man's creation and building materials (dust), need of a man to till the ground, tend the garden. We already know Eve was made on that day from chapter 1. 6. After being set in the garden, God made the woman. No conflicts, just two perspectives. thje first concerning all of creation in 6 days, the second concerning certain parts of the creation, but covering the same 6 days.
quote:
WS: "Sin" is already defined and 'set in stone', so your futile attempt to redefine sin and morality is pointless.
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Of course, definitions are meaningless unless you believe the dictionary. Why do Christians not understand that? WS: The Bible predates all known dictionaries, doesn't it? Anyway, God's definition is the one that matters in eternity and in this life. So what do the dictionaries say of sin? Merriam-Webster Main Entry: sin Function: noun Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin; and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is -- more at IS Date: before 12th century 1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c : an often serious shortcoming : FAULT 2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God synonym see OFFENSE
quote:
Without knowledge of sin there can be no morality that would sustain any significant civilization for very long.
Sorry, but you don't need a concept of sin to create and hold a society together. All you need is common sense. The concept of sin is superflous. WS: Says who? What philosopher? An atheist guru?
quote:
WS: Can you prove that? Until you can, the Bible stands true, self-proven, self-supported, backed by the testimony of many.*
Self-proven and self-supported are by default invalid. Its called circular reasoning. Backed by testimony is a fallacy called an appeal to popularity-- argumentum ad populum. WS: Looks like a description of evolutionary theory. By self-supported I mean each independently written book by remote authors in different generations wrote without contradicting the others. No two evolutionists writing simple articles about the fossil record can claim such a feat without having read each other. Show me your secular evidence. WS: I've already explained the secular thing. They don't up-front admit supportive evidences of the bible, keeping their work entirely free of religion until it is necessary to add interpretations to their finds. Your demand for only secular evidence is oppressive and would require much work to extract from articles already read over the years. The fruit of that work is always met with simple denials from atheists, and a terrible waste of time (except that I learned a lot in the research). Typical responses to many hours of work on a post supplying secular citation of Bible verification is a one-liner like "BS" or "That's your opinion". That is why I lean on Bible Archeologists who have already provided all the facts I need. If you want evidence of corroboration aplenty, visit them. You wouldn't believe me. Home - Biblical Archaeology Society Biblical Archeology Society http://archnet.asu.edu/ Archaeological Research Institute, AZ St. U. http://www.biblehistory.net/ Bible Believer's Archeology http://www.cogsc.org/link0001.htmBIBARCH – Our 25th year of service
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by John, posted 09-16-2002 3:14 PM | | John has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by John, posted 09-17-2002 12:24 AM | | Wordswordsman has replied |
|
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 57 of 165 (17552)
09-16-2002 8:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by nos482
09-16-2002 3:51 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
I'm not going to reply to you anymore. It is too much work for very little return. Please learn how to post, you are including the entire post when it is unneccessary.
WS: Made you too uncomfortable? Your replies are so often so remote as to require the context to permit a sensible response. Without the previous quotes it is necessary to scroll back and forth between posts to figure out what was said to get those strange responses. I suppose all those three word one-liners wore you down? Anyway, I proved your comments to be innacurate, sometimes completely false, and evidenced your ignorance of the Bible. You need to pick on topics you know something about. I can understand why you would want to tuck and run. Sort of embarassing, huh?  I challenged you to acknowledge valid points made, which you don't do- more reason to avoid future discussion. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by nos482, posted 09-16-2002 3:51 PM | | nos482 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by nos482, posted 09-16-2002 9:43 PM | | Wordswordsman has replied |
|
nos482
Inactive Member
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wordswordsman: WS: Made you too uncomfortable? Your replies are so often so remote as to require the context to permit a sensible response. Without the previous quotes it is necessary to scroll back and forth between posts to figure out what was said to get those strange responses. I suppose all those three word one-liners wore you down? Anyway, I proved your comments to be innacurate, sometimes completely false, and evidenced your ignorance of the Bible. You need to pick on topics you know something about. I can understand why you would want to tuck and run. Sort of embarassing, huh? I challenged you to acknowledge valid points made, which you don't do- more reason to avoid future discussion. [/B][/QUOTE] Hardly. Arguing with you is like hitting one's head against a dense wall. You wouldn't accept anything even if the proof were undeniable and right in front of you. Like I had said, you are a TRUE believer and nothing will stand in the way of that. You can't allow anything to stand in the way of your beliefs. See my thread "Why People want to believe there is a god" and this fits you to a tee. Your religious beliefs are all you have. You are too deluded to be truly rational. Even the others on here who don't agree with me most of the time see just how irrational you are. I won't be a performer in your little Cirque Du Lusion. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-16-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Only theories, no evidence at all, just accusations based on ignorance.
Ignorance? Is that what you call objective analysis? What would you consider evidence anyway? ...signed document on God's own letterhead?
quote:
WS: I've already been through all of that elsewhere. The main argument seems to be this verse: Genesis 36:31
If you think the main argument is this verse then you really haven't done your homework. I would accuse you of not reading the url I posted, but I can't get it to come up either. Try this.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.religioustoleance.org/chr_tora.htm quote:
WS: I've already been all over many of those unbeliever sites chasing down the misunderstandings.
quote:
NEVER is there any acknowledgement of the answers, characteristic of unbelievers owing no courtesy to anyone.
This is off-topic, but the worst people I have ever known have been believers.
quote:
There are hundreds of so-called erors, all of them answered quite well over the years, which helped me deal with them.
I have seen a number of 'errors' which I wouldn't really consider errors.
[quote][b]Several preachers online have noticed my involvement and have warned I'm really not supposed to engage in such foolishness with non/unbelievers.[/quote] [/b] Yes, step one: seperate the believers from the rational.
quote:
They are right, in that I should not answer a fool on his level.
Interesting turn of phrase.
quote:
He had all God wanted him to have in that one commandment not to eat of that tree. One commandment was all Adam had.
You've missed the point. Having no knowledge of good and evil, Adam had no way to process the command from God.
quote:
Eve deceived Adam, listening to the serpent, and deserved punishment.
This is not what you implied in an earlier post.
quote:
1)God is refering to theirselves as plural. (The 'royal we' did not exist until much later) WS: I offered that one earlier, but Nos couldn't handle it. The plural is correct. We call the Godhead a "trinity".
hmmm.... well, it only works if you can extrapolate backwards from the new testament, which makes a mess of chronology...
quote:
You make the common error of not recognizing the outline method of Genesis chapters one and two.
No, I am afraid not.
quote:
Both cover the same creation week, one in summary, one in more detail concerning Adam and Eve.
Nope. The two accounts are much too different.
quote:
An illiterate person might fail to grasp the literary style there, but millions do not miss it.
You are full of implicit insult aren't you? Textual analysis reveals quite a few literary styles in there, indicating not one but several authors and a bunch of editting.
quote:
WS: Outline it. You are missing it. Chapter 2 isn't a day by day rehash of the sequence of chapter one. It concentrates on other details without contradicting anything.
This argument I have seen before, but the issue comes up again in a bit.
quote:
WS: Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The Hebrew for male/female is zakar/neqebah. That doesn't fit your take.
Well, I wasn't exactly serious about this one. Nonetheless, it is interesting that your reply corrects me on something I never disputed. My comment was about the chosen pronouns.
quote:
Ch. 1
Day 1: day and night.
Day 2: separation between earth, atmoshphere, and the outer heavens.
Day 3: land raised, oceans lowered, vegetation started.
Day 4: Moon, planets, stars created in adition to the sun already separating day and night, the moon and stars ruling by night.
Day 5: Marine life and winged flying creatures, commanded to multiply.
Day 6: Earth dwelling creatures, followed by man, then woman. Ch. 2
1. Summary of the finishing in chapter one, and the day of rest.
2. Recap: Heavens & earth made.
3. Verse 4 says the preceding was the Heb. towledah, or history of the creation, up through day 7.
4. Plant discussion. Already made in Day 3, the plants grow and multiply. No rain, but a mist arose to water plants.
5. Jumping to day 6. Mention of man's creation and building materials (dust), need of a man to till the ground, tend the garden. We already know Eve was made on that day from chapter 1.
6. After being set in the garden, God made the woman. No conflicts, just two perspectives. thje first concerning all of creation in 6 days, the second concerning certain parts of the creation, but covering the same 6 days.
OK: 1)Chapter one is creation in seven days. The version in chapter two begins with "in the day..." "Day" singular. The word is YVM, the same chosen for "day" in the first account. This alone is a pretty clear indication that we are dealing with two creation accounts. 2)Your Chapter2 #2.... This apparently resides between the day of rest and verse 4, but where? 3)Your Chap2 #3.... You seem to be saying that this refers back to the first account? Ie. That was the creation.... It isn't written this way. It is written as an intro to a story that is beginning. 4)Your chap2 #4-5... now it gets interesting. Your 4-5 have plants growing prior to the creation of man, as in the first account. But actually, your points 4 and 5 should be reversed, at least partially. Plants don't grow until after man is created. Gen 2:9. 5)Now, it could be said that Gen 2:9 only refers to plants in the Garden and not to plants in general, so lets look at verse 2:5 instead. "No shrub of the field was yet in the earth..." Where would an already created shrub, as in your point #4, be if not in the earth? Its the little things that get ya.
quote:
WS: The Bible predates all known dictionaries, doesn't it? Anyway, God's definition is the one that matters in eternity and in this life. So what do the dictionaries say of sin?
Again you've missed the point entirely. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God so your appeals to its authority are meaningless to me.
quote:
WS: Says who? What philosopher? An atheist guru?
Must I be parroting an atheist? No. I have certainly read material which was written by atheists, but I have read far far more which was written by those of other religious persuasions. Chimpanzees build and maintain complex societies. Are they dependent upon the concept of sin?
quote:
WS: Looks like a description of evolutionary theory.
Cheap shot. Very painful. Ouch.
quote:
By self-supported I mean each independently written book by remote authors in different generations wrote without contradicting the others.
This statement proves only your biases. I have read the bible also. And I find it to be full of absurdity. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 60 of 165 (17595)
09-17-2002 11:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by John
09-17-2002 12:24 AM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Wordswordsman: You've missed the point. Having no knowledge of good and evil, Adam had no way to process the command from God. WS: Adam was GIVEN the level of knowledge needed to know not to eat of that one tree. He was TOLD not to do it, and told what would happen to him if he did. If you tell an "innocent" child not to drink water from a toilet, but he does it anyway, would you say he had no knowledge of right and wrong, and remains innocent of the habit? The child would definitely have the knowledge yet remain basically innocent of most other forms of evil until experienced or commanded not to do something. He has been warned, owns the knowledge, though may not be convinced of its weight with you the giver of such knowledge, or comprehend the reason for the knowledge given, but is considered accountable for it, else the parent has no authority over the child, and the child is doomed anyway. Whether he understands or not, the order must be enforced via paddle or whatever promised would happen, until the child grows to understand. Being told death would result should have been convincing for Adam. The serpent convinced Eve they would NOT die if they violated the commandment. Although Adam had the knowledge concerning that one act, he succomed to being deceived. Suppose another child came to visit yours, who still drinks from toilets. He convinces yours it's really OK, so yours resumes the habit. Is the knowledge of evil absent? No. Rebellion is present. It is compounded in that your child takes the advice of someone else usurping your authority. That presents two problems where only one existed to some degree. It's one thing to doubt the person in authority over you. It's quite another to accept the conflicting authority of another. 1)Chapter one is creation in seven days. The version in chapter two begins with "in the day..." "Day" singular. The word is YVM, the same chosen for "day" in the first account. This alone is a pretty clear indication that we are dealing with two creation accounts. WS: The first part of Genesis 2:4 refers to the original creation (Genesis 1:1); the last part of that verse recaps the work of days two, three, and four. The first work was a creation and the second work was a separation of the clouds in day two, the earth in day three, and the solar system in day four. "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" begins a new narrative, complete in itself to a great extent. Genesis 1:3-2:4a is the summary of the six days' work; Genesis 2:4b-25 is a more detailed account of the work of days two, three, five, and six. The first narrative states what God did and embraces the universe and all things therein. The second mainly describes how the work of days two, three, five, and six was done. Day 4 details were not concerning the featured topic of events on earth itself, so were omitted, though the reader is aware of the sequence from chapter one. 2)Your Chapter2 #2.... This apparently resides between the day of rest and verse 4, but where? WS: 4a 3)Your Chap2 #3.... You seem to be saying that this refers back to the first account? Ie. That was the creation.... It isn't written this way. It is written as an intro to a story that is beginning. WS: The English word "generations" in 4a bridges the two summaries. It is from the Hebrew word for "history". What came before 4a is the same but with a shift in emphasis beginning in verse 5. "in the day" in 4b is a frequently used phrase meaning literally one 24 hot-hour day while also understood to cover one complete event, as in "the day of the Lord" standing for a 42 month tribulation period. 'In that day' of many days men will experience many days of trials. 4)Your chap2 #4-5... now it gets interesting. Your 4-5 have plants growing prior to the creation of man, as in the first account. But actually, your points 4 and 5 should be reversed, at least partially. Plants don't grow until after man is created. Gen 2:9. WS: The BIBLE has plants growing prior to creation of man. In Ch. 1 day 3 plants are started before man is made in day 6, as you note. But then we find this: Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Both accounts agree. Plants preceeded man. The plants grew, but nobody was around to till and tend. Now do you see what I mean by the fact that claims of error in the Bible are false, born of a lack of proper reading and understanding? You were so certain plants didn't grow before man was created. Doesn't this alert you? 5)Now, it could be said that Gen 2:9 only refers to plants in the Garden and not to plants in general, so lets look at verse 2:5 instead. "No shrub of the field was yet in the earth..." Where would an already created shrub, as in your point #4, be if not in the earth? Its the little things that get ya. WS: The word rendered "plant" or "shrub" is from Hebrew siyach; a shoot (as if uttered or put forth), i.e. (general) shrubbery :- bush, plant, shrub. Verse 5 couldn't refer to the Garden, because it was planted AFTER man was made: Genesis 2:7-8 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. [8] And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. It should be obvious God transplanted 'siyach' already in existence, making a special garden. Where did you get "No shrub of the field was yet in the earth..." in verse 5?
quote:
WS: The Bible predates all known dictionaries, doesn't it? Anyway, God's definition is the one that matters in eternity and in this life. So what do the dictionaries say of sin?
Again you've missed the point entirely. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God so your appeals to its authority are meaningless to me. WS: That might be true among less than 2% of the population. Apart from your unbelief there is no other authority you can appeal to that has weight among practically every other human on earth. You are without authority except that loosely held among your few peers. That is by mutual consent, not by anything authoritative. Opinions of scientists able only to comment on the seen can't be greater than those of people able to "see" the unseen by faith as well as observe the seen. They have the greater, more real perspective. Almost all people hold some theistic belief, regarding an authority higher than themselves. Among the clear majority of Christians, according to virtually every poll, evolution theory is invalid, and many believe all the writings of evolutionists are demon-inspired. Although they might not all be so inspired, many people are convinced they are. That conclusion is based on the conflicts with the Word of God. Whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God matters not. That doesn't take away from that authority. People who submit to that authority are blessed by the God of that Word.
quote:
WS: Says who? What philosopher? An atheist guru?
Must I be parroting an atheist? No. I have certainly read material which was written by atheists, but I have read far far more which was written by those of other religious persuasions. WS: The original religion was from the Judeo-Christian God, given first to Adam and Eve, passed on to their two sons who proceeded to offer sacrifices. That pattern was exemplified by God clothing the couple with skins, and in Abel's offering which was accepted. Both involved shedding of blood for remission of sin. Until Cain slew Abel over that offering, the sin needing remisison was the original, imputed sin of Adam passed on to his sons. Plant oferings were insufficient. The blood and flesh of sheep was, temporarily, followed by many more like offerings. All other religions that sprang up among the separate descendants of Adam were departures from the original religion given by God, to this day. That original religion was consummated by Christ on the cross, he being the final blood sacrifice, opening the way to the completed path to the Father through him alone. There are no other ways to God, but by Jesus Christ. Chimpanzees build and maintain complex societies. Are they dependent upon the concept of sin? WS: 1. God made them that way. 2. Their society is not as complex as that of humans. 3. They were never given the law of God, so are not accountable for sin, having no spirit in the image and likeness of God. 4. They don't praise and worship God, though they do share the burden of a damaged creation on account of man's sin.
quote:
By self-supported I mean each independently written book by remote authors in different generations wrote without contradicting the others.
This statement proves only your biases. I have read the bible also. And I find it to be full of absurdity. WS: Many respected statisticians, both secular and Bible-believing- have analyzed the facts around the writings on the Bible, presenting powerful mathematical probabilities that eliminate coincidences and fraudulent last days creation ofthe books of the Bible. Many books arein print discussing the mathematical purity of Holy Scriptues and their inter-relationships. Theomatics is just one such field of study. That the various authors (40 or so) living separately in different times, few having access to all or most of the writings of the others (except the NT authors), being so completely harmonious is not considered an accident, but evidence of a central magnificent 'Chairman' directing the writings over a period of many centuries. No mortal man could have seen to the harmony of those writings. That is just one of dozens of reasons men understand the writings were "God-breathed", i.e. inspired by God in both spoken word and thought. Regardless of the evidences that support the inspiration of the Bible, the unseen God of the Bible requires belief by faith, not evidence alone. He imputed righteousness all along through simple acts of faith, believing the least claim of him but placing themselves in jeopardy doing so. If God had required belief in strictly empirical evidence, then what would he have following him? A bunch of humans believing the evidence, but not particularly believing or trusting HIM. The faith must come first, which He provides the seed of to believe. Then He allows the empirical evidence to pile up, building faith. For instance. In my earlier years of Christianity, I had a problem believing tithing was practical. I remained on the edge of poverty most of my life, living from paycheck to paycheck, keeping the change. I finally took the Bible literally concerning that. My income didn't increase, but immediately things happened to allow more of it to be available for us instead of others with their hands out. For one, a lady my wife visited often in her last months of life left her $100K home and new Crown Victoria, jewelry, and more to her. That ended rent payments and added a nice asset of personal worth. Because of that blessing we were able to use the former rent money to get out of debt. The blessings continue to pile up, and now my wife is listed on three more wills of people she provides living care for, and one admirer who sees her work among the elderly. Others are right now seeing or plan to visit their lawyers to change their wills too. My wife tells them we don't need what they have, but they recognize God is in her and want to bless her anyway, especially among elderly people with no living children. They are encouraged to hear the gospel in their last days, eternally thankful for the good news and hope that eluded them so long. We have inherited other properties from people we didn't expect inheritance from. The promises of the Bible have come alive for us because of the prayers and confessions when we first discovered them while yet in poverty, with no hope of inheritance from either side of our families. Then there are the many medical miracles admitted by doctors, but I doubt you would be interested, since those came after much prayer and confession of Bible promises. Those things are all the evidence I need to step out in ever deeper faith toward God for bigger adventures. Besides, I am blessed every month reading of the archeological discoveries that make the stories in the Bible come alive vividly, adding excitement to ancient events I had no vision about. But, you are a free-will agent allowed by God to plow on down the row of your choosing. I came here (and other places) to encourage any other Christians that might read and be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them. I will continue to expose the fallacy of such arguments as yours as being nothing more than simple non-belief based on simple error-ridden opinion with no basis, except the requirement of empirical evidence, which God will withhold from you until after you believe. He doesn't want you or anyone else your way or the way of all other religions, including Judaism in any of its ancient or modern forms. He bought every human with His own blood, and requires that each of us just accept that and obey Him. There is the One God, a plural trinity of Persons in perfect united harmony, who is revealed in the Bible. That Bible details the conditions that God requires for salvation and eternal life with Him. His Word says the only path to the Father is by way of his Son, Jesus the Messiah. Obtaining the Heaven (God's Heaven) of the Bible is by one path alone. Gaining it through some other path through some other religion is not possible this side of the cross of Christ. Those other religions must provide their own eternal destinies in this life, but all with result in a dead-end in the Hell of the Bible. It is rediculous to assert that once the Father gave his Son to be sacrificed for the sins of many that people can come to Him by obedience to some set of rules on earth that ignore that gift to mankind. That gift was prophecied all through the Old Testament of the Bible, fulfilled on the cross of Christ. Man is wihout excuse for neglecting such a great salvation. There will not be one conversation in eternity along this line: "Well, I'm glad to see you made it here to Heaven, by the blood of our Lord Jesus, of course!" "Oh, no, I just slapped my bloody back with chains once a year, and dipped snuff as required by our guru in the hills of Tennessee, praying to Gish three times a day." Another breaks in with "Huh, I had it easier. I stuck to driving Chevrolet pickups and keeping an American flag bumper sticker on it, and besides, anyone with a grandmother like mine was a shoe-in." And yet one more adds "At the gate to this place I quoted them three Confusious sayings I memorized from the cookies in the Panda restaurant, and passed right through." I note that most non-believers celebrate all other religious texts in that they rarely or never attack them, even though none agree with the others. It is only the Bible that is opposed on a large scale. One rarely sees an atheist castigate the Quaran, which is as exclusive as the Bible, though cruely commanding death of infidels in this life, those who refuse to bow to their false god "Allah". I find that amazing, because Muslims won't tolerate atheists and unbelievers among them, yet non-believers remain curiously silent about the dangerous claims of Islam. Christians do tolerate, though we can't respect either atheism or Islam or any other religion, including modern RCC doctrine, which is not at all Christian after the First Church. To respect something is to give preference to it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by John, posted 09-17-2002 12:24 AM | | John has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by Mammuthus, posted 09-17-2002 11:46 AM | | Wordswordsman has replied | | | Message 64 by John, posted 09-17-2002 2:13 PM | | Wordswordsman has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2