Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 306 (241052)
09-07-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Brian
09-07-2005 4:38 AM


Re: Quite possible?
Hi, Brian,
Thanks for the clarification re. links. I did provide the page with the specific answer to the question you had in your previous post, but for some reason, when others clicked on it, they just got the home page or something...not sure what happened but anyway, your point is taken.
Re. that AiG link, I think you've got to remember that that site is primarily for families with children, not scholars, so technical details are kept to a minimum...that's why AiG prints 2 magazines, one for families (Creation) and one for scholars (Technical Journal), the latter would be what you are looking for. In my study of the issues of the last 15 years, I have heard all these arguments from various critics over the years that are presented on the site, whether they be authors or just the ordinary person on the street. Certainly, Christians (especially younger ones) visiting this site will have met most if not all of the objections mentioned in the article and so would want to 'cut to the chase'. I think the point is to give possible answers to common questions/objections in a brief form, so non-scholars don't get lost in the verbiage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Brian, posted 09-07-2005 4:38 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Phat, posted 09-07-2005 1:39 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 09-07-2005 1:46 PM Steve8 has not replied
 Message 157 by Brian, posted 09-07-2005 2:04 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 159 by CK, posted 09-07-2005 2:24 PM Steve8 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 152 of 306 (241053)
09-07-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by cavediver
09-07-2005 1:06 PM


Re: Even Funnier.
Yeah.
And you can probably hear them call out to the other survivors as they stagger away, "Be sure to knock me up sometime!"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 1:06 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 1:40 PM jar has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 306 (241059)
09-07-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Nighttrain
09-07-2005 4:29 AM


Re: Quite possible?
Nightrain,
I am answering questions that other evolutionists have asked me, not coming up with topics out of the blue...if you don't want to reply to my post, you don't have to...there are evolutionist arguments I have seen on this site that are 'old hat' to me too, if I'm too bored by them to answer I will ignore them. However, I guess for me, this is not about winning arguments per se, but for finding out what's really behind all this vitriol. 'Cause I suspect there is more to all the hot air than meets the eye. I thought by the title of this site EvC that it would be an equally balanced site on the issue but I'm coming to see that it's a site for evolutionists to debunk creationism. Oh, well, I'm not afraid of that. I will ignore the snide remark about the 'Dark side'...as a former atheist myself, been there, done that, as they say...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Nighttrain, posted 09-07-2005 4:29 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 154 of 306 (241062)
09-07-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Steve8
09-07-2005 1:07 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Hello, Steve8! I have a few questions in my mind that I will try and get out in this post to stimulate your thinking process.
I am a definite believer in God. Also in His Son, Jesus Christ. Had the Bible never been written, I feel confidant that God still would have reached me. (I never found Him, you see. He found me.)
1) Why do Biblical stories have to be literal? Why can they not be true in the sense of meaning yet parables in the sense of actuality?
2) What if God foreknew that Biblical literalism would be a source of future controversy among people, just as He foreknew that the Pharisee Jews would clash with Jesus over scriptural literalism?
3) Why does "proving" the points you raise mean anything to your faith...or ours? Is not the main issue and cause to "prove" that Jesus Christ lives in your heart? If you shine like a light, people may not respond, but they cannot deny that you have a powerful energy source! If AiG were such a powerful source, scientists the world over would be examining the data with enthusiasm. Apparantly, they are not impressed.
4) We as Christians need to ask ourselves what the most effective way of sharing Jesus Christ is with the people whom we interact. Some, such as my good friend Brian, are totally unconvinced. What do I do? Wash my hands of "him" and find a "dumber" audience?
Or...perhaps in the spirit of EvC, we continue to talk back and forth and approach topics from ever evolving angles of thought.
My point is that AiG has nothing for these guys here at EvC...but Jesus Christ does! Ask yourself how to communicate the message that you want them to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 1:07 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 7:32 PM Phat has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 155 of 306 (241063)
09-07-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by jar
09-07-2005 1:10 PM


Re: Even Funnier.
"Be sure to knock me up sometime!"
Gen 8v17
quote:
...that they may hump each other abundantly on the earth, and knock each other up and multiply on the earth.
It can't get any clearer than that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 09-07-2005 1:10 PM jar has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 156 of 306 (241064)
09-07-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Steve8
09-07-2005 1:07 PM


Re: Quite possible?
The AiG website reproduces articles from both magazines. But I wouldn't classify the TJ as being for scholars. Neither magazine is aimed at anyone who would critically examine the claims..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 1:07 PM Steve8 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 157 of 306 (241071)
09-07-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Steve8
09-07-2005 1:07 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Hi,
Re. that AiG link, I think you've got to remember that that site is primarily for families with children, not scholars, so technical details are kept to a minimum...
Could it be that they don't have technical details, and perhaps they depend on the gullibiity of the audience?
To provide a reference to support a claim only takes a few seconds and has nothing to do with the target audience. I have no idea why I should believe that there are people who said that aliens built the pyramids, as far as I know no one has said this.
that's why AiG prints 2 magazines, one for families (Creation) and one for scholars (Technical Journal),
Yes, I know, but both are academically very poor.
But even writing for families surely it is the done thing to support what you are asking them to believe? Even saying "some scholars, such as William Albright, claim that...." would be far better than nothing at all.
In my study of the issues of the last 15 years, I have heard all these arguments from various critics over the years that are presented on the site, whether they be authors or just the ordinary person on the street.
But this is completely irrelevant if you are writing an arcticle! Do you think that a Uni prof. would think that way? Of course they wouldn't, authors need to reference their sources because without them they could essentially just say anything that they wanted to.
I think the point is to give possible answers to common questions/objections in a brief form, so non-scholars don't get lost in the verbiage.
You will find that the majority of people here would expect to be refuted by a decent quality of rebuttal, and not a children's brainwashing site. Perhaps you should abandon AiG and look for a better quality academic site.
Brian.
PS, you still haven't said why the Ark scenario is possible.
This message has been edited by Brian, 09-07-2005 02:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 1:07 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 8:58 PM Brian has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 158 of 306 (241072)
09-07-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Steve8
09-06-2005 10:50 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I know that your post has met a lot of hostility on the board, so I'm going to try a different approach.
That's one of the things I've learned about this debate as a former atheistic evolutionist myself...in order to understand the opposing camp's views, you must accept ALL of their presuppositions first (however temporarily or permanently)...only then can you see their logic...without that, you're always groping in the dark.
I'm going to try to accept all the presuppositions, but I need to make sure that I have them right in order to do so.
1) The Bible is literally true.
2) Therefore, when the Bible says Noah took two of every animal after their kind, what it's saying is 2 large cats (not necessarily two lions and two tigers, etc).
3) Dinosaurs were alive at this time, so 2 of every kind of dinosaur came on board.
4) Noah and his immediate family were the only people to survive.
5) The water came for 40 days / nights.
6) The water then vanished, leaving behind layers of sedament containing fossils of those things that died in the flood.
7) The Ark landed and people and animals spread out. Some of which became extinct right away, others did not.
8) After this happened, the continents broke apart and moved away from each other
9) Noah's decendants rapidly spread out as well.
I'm sure I've missed some, but I want to simply discuss the ones I've listed.
Fully accepted everything that happened as fact, I still have some unanswered questions.
1) Which Flood account in which Bible is true? Some say 2 of every animal, some say 2 of the uncleans and 7 of the clean ones.
2a) If Creationists support microevolution but not macroevolution, and they define microevolution as changes within a species, how do we explain that tigers and lions can not interbreed successfully?
2b) Are foxes or coyotes dogs, or are they their own kind? How about bears vs badgers? How about kangaroos vs thylacines?
3/7) Why save the dinosaurs from the Flood only to have them go extinct immediately afterwards? -or- Why doesn't the Bible say that Noah took two of every animal onto the Ark except the dinosaurs?
4) If Noah, his 3 sons and their 3 wives were the only ones to survive. Wouldn't that necessarily imply a whole lot of cousin on cousin lovin to propogate the entire rest of humanity?
5) Where did the water come from? Where did it go after it fell?
6/7) After the water disappeared, why did the layers of sedament only capture certain types of animals and plants in them? Why are the dinosaurs seperate from the elephants? Both are large animals which can not swim. Speaking of swimming, why did so many aquatic animals die in the flood? Why didn't the other aquatic animals die?
8) Why did the continents break apart after the Flood and not during the flood? If all the layers of sedament were set down during the flood, shouldn't that make the continents less likely to spread apart immediately after the waters vanished?
9) How did Noah's small family spread out and become all the races of the Earth, and why, after living through such a traumatic event did they so rapidly abandon God and the scriptures in favor of other false deities? How is it that one branch of Noah's family - the Chinese, record a history that runs through before the Flood in a language that none of the rest of Noah's family knows?
I'm willing to accept your theory of Creation, but it has to make sense internally. Hopefully you can answer the questions.
Please understand that every time you answer with "it was magic" you do more damage to your cause than good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 10:50 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 11:04 PM Nuggin has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 159 of 306 (241080)
09-07-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Steve8
09-07-2005 1:07 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Steve - you aware of the "statement of faith" that all of the TCJ editors sign (if not I'll paste it for you)?
How can you be invovled in science if you have to agree the answers before you conduct the research?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 1:07 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 4:03 PM CK has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 306 (241088)
09-07-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by CK
09-07-2005 2:24 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Hi, Charles,
I know of creationists who have been kicked out of scientific organisations because they didn't toe the party line re. evolution, despite not signing anything ahead of time. That is the reason why these creationist organisations have been formed, because the evolutionist ones do not give them the freedom to do work from their own perspective. Your evolutionary friends have actually created that problem! The bottom line is, if a private organisation wants to investigate something from a certain perspective it can, but I think the more scientists who are out there studying things in different orgainisations from all different perspectives, the more likely we are to make new discoveries...but the more that the evolutionist community takes a 'our way or the highway' approach, the more we close off the potential of finding new areas of discovery. I can't see how anyone who has studied the history of science can miss that. My creationist friends see it, hence these newer organisations. After all, many scientific discoveries were made before Darwin without any help from evolution. My point, is, live and let live, and we'll see what happens.
Re. the comment Brian made a day or two ago, about how annoying or hypocritical Christians can be...could it be that they remind him that despite many humanist claims to the contrary, that people aren't inherently good, that no matter how much we are taught to be good, sometimes we just aren't and that the Bible might be right that we are all sinners in need of saving? The question is, does that mean we must save ourselves (as most religions suggest, and that humanists tend to imply), or that only God can save us from our sins (as Christianity suggests)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by CK, posted 09-07-2005 2:24 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Nuggin, posted 09-07-2005 5:18 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 162 by CK, posted 09-07-2005 5:20 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 163 by Chiroptera, posted 09-07-2005 5:34 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 164 by CK, posted 09-07-2005 5:47 PM Steve8 has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 161 of 306 (241100)
09-07-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Steve8
09-07-2005 4:03 PM


Re: Quite possible?
the reason why these creationist organisations have been formed, because the evolutionist ones do not give them the freedom to do work from their own perspective.
No evolution-ist is stopping these people from doing their own research. Scientific organizations simply don't want to fund non-scientific work.
Despite all your points, even if Creationism were 100% true, it still would not be science. Therefore, you might as well expect a French Language club to fund their work as you would expect a science organization.
Further, the real reason these organizations have been formed (as with most "Christian" organizations) is to obtain money from believers. That's why when you go to these websites, they are constantly asking for cash, selling stuff, selling their books, etc.
The fact that the Creationists have still not caught onto this after televangelist after televangelist proves the point is more willful ignorance on their part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 4:03 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 9:36 PM Nuggin has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 162 of 306 (241101)
09-07-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Steve8
09-07-2005 4:03 PM


Repost of question for clarification
I do not understand how a single line of that actually engages with my question?
Let me expand on my early post:
TCJ offers the following statement of faith for it's editors and authors:
quote:
Statement of Faith
(A) PRIORITIES
1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS
1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
4. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.
(C) THEOLOGY
1. The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons”God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
2. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
3. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
4. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
5. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
6. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
7. All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
8. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
9. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
10. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
11. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
(D) GENERAL
1. The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture: Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
4. The ”gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ”secular’ and ”religious’, is rejected.
6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Let's try and engage with my actual questions this time, your answers should not contain the words "evolution, secular, evolutionist" because I am asking you about creation science. If it IS a valid science, it had to be able to stand or fall by it's own validity NOT by the evidence/lack of evidence for another theory/viewpoint? Agreed?
So do you feel that giving your "researchers" explicit guidelines (presented above in bold) on what the answers to your research MUST BE is an example of good science and good practice in general?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Sep-2005 05:20 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Sep-2005 05:22 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Sep-2005 05:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 4:03 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 9:53 PM CK has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 306 (241103)
09-07-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Steve8
09-07-2005 4:03 PM


Re: Quite possible?
quote:
I know of creationists who have been kicked out of scientific organisations because they didn't toe the party line re. evolution, despite not signing anything ahead of time.
Under what circumstances can a scientific organization "kick out" a dues paying member? I haven't heard of such a thing before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 4:03 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 10:10 PM Chiroptera has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 164 of 306 (241106)
09-07-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Steve8
09-07-2005 4:03 PM


Scientific organizations
quote:
I know of creationists who have been kicked out of scientific organisations because they didn't toe the party line re. evolution, despite not signing anything ahead of time
Can you provide us a solid example of this? not something close to this situation but an actual "this member was expelled for being a creationist".
It seems to me that you are slightly confused about how members of academic communities interact with each other.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Sep-2005 05:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 4:03 PM Steve8 has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 306 (241141)
09-07-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Phat
09-07-2005 1:39 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Thanks for your post.
1) Re. literalism, I take what the Biblical writers took literally, literally, and what they didn't take literally, not literally. Far be it from me to question their interpretation of their own book (the OT, which is what this discussion has focused on). I'm sure they knew it better than any of us do.
2) Not sure Jesus clashed with them over literalism per se, more a case of adding so many extra laws to the scriptures, that doing good was made difficult, (on at least one day of the week)impossible!.
3) I think I said I'm not here to primarily win an argument, but to see what is driving people's perspectives as I don't think they are always of an intellectual nature that is claimed, but when people ask questions, I try to reply in some fashion.
4) Basically, I think it's healthy to have a good mix of folks around you, whether it be political, religious viewpoints or whatever. That's how I ended up becoming a Christian, by including some Christians in my circle of friends...oops...hope that doesn't scare anybody lol.
Finally, well, of course, being new to the scene here at this site I had no idea what they were familiar with or not, I ask for your patience as I discover these things. I certainly don't think this is an issue of smart or dumb though. I think intelligence is beside the point...anyone can believe in God or not, no matter what their intelligence is. I think heart issues are key. Don't think I said anything about washing my hands of anybody. At least that's not the plan at the moment lol. Once I'm back working full time, I might become alot more scarce here, though lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Phat, posted 09-07-2005 1:39 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Nuggin, posted 09-07-2005 8:34 PM Steve8 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