Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 306 (220639)
06-29-2005 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brian
06-29-2005 7:36 AM


Also, evolution can be falsified, so how come on one has been able to falsify it?
Creationism cannot be falsified as no models for creation are presented, we are all asked to take it on faith, we are all asked to accept circular reasoning as being an acceptable approach.
The meaning of the word "falsified" is rather puzzling here. I suppose it means "tested"? A scientific theory must be vulnerable to testing to see if it is false or not. I suppose that's what you mean?
What would be a good test we could try on TOE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 06-29-2005 7:36 AM Brian has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 306 (221034)
06-30-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
06-30-2005 9:43 AM


Authority
(I still think all arguments from authority should be deprecated, but perhaps these arguments are stronger in a solely Christian context).
Oh, I don't know. I accept TOE on authority, which seems to me a very reasonable thing to do.
Accepting some religious point on authority seems less reasonable.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-30-2005 11:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 06-30-2005 9:43 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:47 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 306 (221035)
06-30-2005 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
06-30-2005 3:35 PM


I keep reading your sentence about how I did an outstanding job and not believing my eyes
Perhaps he was engaging in irony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 06-30-2005 3:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:42 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 306 (221053)
07-01-2005 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
07-01-2005 12:42 AM


Faith
Yes, Faith, but you must understand that it is asking a lot to accept all the assumptions that you seem to be making, if we are to take the Bible "literally."
Take me, for instance. I don't believe much of anything. And if somebody wants to convince me that I must take the Bible literally, they are going to have to convince me to accept a ton of assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:14 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:33 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 306 (221055)
07-01-2005 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
07-01-2005 1:14 AM


Re: Faith
I gave some simple reasons for reading Genesis literally, pretty straightforward evidence, no hidden assumptions that I can see
Wasn't one of your reasons that Jesus believed in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:20 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 306 (221061)
07-01-2005 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
07-01-2005 1:33 AM


Re: Faith
You say I MUST convince you of a ton of assumptions if I'm to "convince" you? Why am I required to "convince" you? Since when has that become the criterion for a well-argued point? That's setting the goalposts out in space somewhere.
Relax, Faith. I've been looking back at the original--the very original--start of this thread, and I realize that this whole thing was based on the assumption of the truth of Christianity. And when I say "me," I did not mean me personally. I meant "one who was arguing."
I got it now. However, even from a Christian prospective, what about the time that Jesus said he would return within "our" lifetime? Obviously that was not meant literally.
So I guess some of what He said is literal and some not.
And the way we decide which is not literal is whether it is realistic or not (Jonah) or whether it came true or not.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 12:44 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 12:46 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 12:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:58 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 306 (221063)
07-01-2005 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-01-2005 1:58 AM


Re: Faith
There seems to be a big confusion about what "literal" means.
Indeed there is. But if Jesus says to his followers, "I will return in your lifetime," I suppose that is figurative, since He did not return in their lifetime.
But if he says something about the creation of the Earth according to Genesis, we are to suppose that is literal.
Any particular reason to say that the latter is literal, while the former is figurative? It is true of course that He did not return (literally), but on the other hand is there any reason to suppose that his idea of Genesis was not also figurative?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:58 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 306 (221087)
07-01-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-01-2005 2:58 AM


Re: Faith
It does appear to be a matter of interpretation what it means, but there is some agreement that it means they would see the spread of the gospel into the world under God's power, the manifestation of that power being a big proof of the coming of the kingdom.
That is a figurative interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 3:55 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 306 (221114)
07-01-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
07-01-2005 3:55 AM


Who did Cain marry?
I really do not see how you get that it is figurative. Seems to me that if you have a metaphor or a figure it has to be a metaphor or a figure OF something.
The second coming is a metaphor for the establishment of the church.
What about the logical problems of Genesis such as who Cain married?
The Bible speaks as though there were all these other poeple around.
Says Cain to God:
"Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face I shall be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagbond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me." Gen 4:14
Who is this "everyone"? It can only be his parents.
"And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
What is the necessity of this mark? It's not like there are a lot of strangers out there.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 08:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 3:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:04 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 07-01-2005 1:02 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 306 (221154)
07-01-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
07-01-2005 12:04 PM


Re: Who did Cain marry?
When people live to be hundreds of years old and keep propagating there are a lot of strangers in the world very fast.
Let's say Adam and Eve had 20 kids, 10 daughters and 10 sons. That gives us 22 people. Let's say the 10 daughters marry the 10 sons, and each couple has 20 kids. That's 200. So we have a grand total of 222 people.
Not exactly a metropolis. I would think they would not have too hard of a time being acquainted with each other.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 11:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:40 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 306 (221166)
07-01-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Chiroptera
07-01-2005 1:02 PM


Re: Who did Cain marry?
The mark was intended to be a sign from God that Cain was under his protection.
Thanks, that makes sense. It's rather odd, but apparently Cain had no children at this time. He must have been about a 100 years old. It was only after he went to Nod that he knew his wife--perhaps a first cousin.
Seth was a replacement for Abel, and you get the impression that this was Eve's third child. But obviously that cannot be. None of Eve's other children are mentioned. From Chapter 5, one gets the impression that Adam really didn't get going with having children until after he begot Seth, at the age of 130.
As a matter of fact, Genesis seems to suggest that people didn't have children until they were about 100. There's Cain, and there's also Seth. "And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enos."
But maybe that could be explained by the idea that all along they were having all these other kids. They just weren't mentioned, for some reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 07-01-2005 1:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 306 (221167)
07-01-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Philip
07-01-2005 1:19 PM


Re: Who did Cain marry?
It seems perhaps an honest Evo would no longer beg the question "Who did Cain marry?"
What has "honesty" got to do with it? One is not "honest" if one asks that question? I wasn't familiar with that pure-blood theory.
What I find strange is that this incredible story about people living 900 years and mating with their brothers and sisters because they had pure blood or something would be more believable to anyone than the scientific account.
It amazes me.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 01:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Philip, posted 07-01-2005 1:19 PM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:12 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 306 (221179)
07-01-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
07-01-2005 2:12 PM


Re: Who did Cain marry?
The scientific account simply extrapolates back from what is observed to be the normal situation now, and makes the unsupportable assumption that things were always the same
Whereas those in the know have all this evidence that people way back in the day used to live 900 years.
If science doesn't recognize it, eventually science will run into more and more inexplicables, particularly as they trace back genomes, as the facts just are not going to fit their evolutionist presuppositions. They don't fit now as it is, but since it's all a matter of interpretation and not testable, falsifiable etc., they can go for quite some time before the inexplicables force recognition.
In other words, all the scientists down through the years who have done research in this field don't know what they are talking about. They are clowns who don't even know the basics of their own field and haven't known it for many years. Biologists can correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that TOE is a fundamental concept in the entire field of biological study. It's not something extraneous that we could very well do without.
Anyway, these clowns have for more than a century been building up more and more empirical evidence, starting with the fossil record and development of dating technqiues, and then getting a big confirming boost from DNA analysis (relatively recent)--all this being done in a state of sheer delusion. Because from the point of view of Genesis, that's what it amounts to.
If they insist on researching the physical past, they ought to be out searching for Eden and trying to find the fossils of people who lived for 900 years. That might be worthwhile. Instead they are doing all this research and wasting our tax dollars on an ignorant theory. Any results from any study based on TOE is a total waste of time, of no more use than trying to figure out the movements of the planets before it was discovered that the Earth revolved around the sun. TOE is really on the same level as Ptolemaic astronomy.
That appears to be the conclusion of creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 3:36 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 306 (221188)
07-01-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
07-01-2005 3:36 PM


The Clowns of Science
Yes.And yes yes yes yes yes and yup yup yup
Whereas scientific method in other fields--well, that's different.
They are not such clowns in other areas.
It's only in this field of biology that you find the clowns, for some reason.
Or perhaps creationists don't accept, say, atomic theory either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 3:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 4:19 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 306 (221193)
07-01-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Chiroptera
07-01-2005 4:07 PM


Re: Hey, God, what's with the attitude?
and when you get to heaven you're going to follow his rules, and you're gonna like it.
You don't really think Charles has a chance at heaven, do you?
Not by a considerable sight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Chiroptera, posted 07-01-2005 4:07 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 07-01-2005 5:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024