[_ Old Earth _] Atheist Darwinism vs the Bible "for Christians"

[BobRyan]

I think much of the difficulty in all of this is that yom can mean a literal 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.

That is true -- in certain contexts it clearly can .. but not ONE source has been found showing that the term in Ex 20 can be bent as Darwinism needs. Even the Orthodox Jews admit that the Hebrew language in the case of Ex 20 does not allow the level of bending and wrenching that would be required in DArwinISM to switch meanings between "SIX Days you SHALL LABOR.." and "FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE...".

Even they admit it would require an impossible feat of eisegetical insertion to bend it in that way.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

I think much of the difficulty in all of this is that yom can mean a literal 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.

That is true -- in certain contexts it clearly can .. but not ONE source has been found showing that the term in Ex 20 can be bent as Darwinism needs. Even the Orthodox Jews admit that the Hebrew language in the case of Ex 20 does not allow the level of bending and wrenching that would be required in DArwinISM to switch meanings between "SIX Days you SHALL LABOR.." and "FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE...".

Even they admit it would require an impossible feat of eisegetical insertion to bend it in that way.

And so far we still only have your word for this......

 

[Caroline H]

Barbarian observes:
Genesis directly rules out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

And how does it do this?

God says that the earth brought forth living things. Something scientists are just beginning to confirm.

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Life, says God, was not created ex nihilo, but rather was done by the agency of nature. That's how God does almost everything in this world.

Barbarian, the earth is fertile meaning it can support life. When a farmer plants a field of corn it grows from seeds, not directly from soil. It is the earth that nourishes the life and provides a place for it to spring up. This is what it means for the earth to "bring forth life", it means that it is the place in which it grows.

Now, my take on evolution is this: First, It is against the Bible to say that it could've taken millions of years for life to evolve. The word Yom is indeed used in different contexts throughout the Bible, but whenever it is accompanied by a number (1st, 2nd,etc...,) as it is in Genesis 1, it is clearly defined as an actual day. Also, In Genesis 1 Yom is described using "morning and evening", which cannot be confused with an undetermined amount of time or an era. Second, Genesis 2:7 it says that "God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Here there is no room for a Christian to say they believe the Bible, but also in evolution because we either came from a puddle of amino acids and God is lying, or God actually built a man out of the soil and gave him life.

Hebrews 11:1-3 "1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2) For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (KJV)

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian, the earth is fertile meaning it can support life. When a farmer plants a field of corn it grows from seeds, not directly from soil. It is the earth that nourishes the life and provides a place for it to spring up. This is what it means for the earth to "bring forth life", it means that it is the place in which it grows.

Good points -- however when a farmer plants a seed in the ground he is not sowing into a sterile environment -- he fertilizes the seed - the ground contains organic nutrients and the seed itself is a complex living "system" designed to transform raw minerals into living cells.

If you simply toss a seed into a sterile environment with no organic nutrients -- it dies. God not only created the seeds he created the nutrient rich organic soil for growth. More than that -- he caused all plant life to arise in a single day (so not even normal seed planting) -- and by day 5 and 6 we have animals eating those plants as "food".

Truly not something we will ever be able to manufacture even in a lab.

Now, my take on evolution is this: First, It is against the Bible to say that it could've taken millions of years for life to evolve. The word Yom is indeed used in different contexts throughout the Bible, but whenever it is accompanied by a number (1st, 2nd,etc...,) as it is in Genesis 1, it is clearly defined as an actual day.

True -- not even ONE example of "evening and morning where the X-Day" where yom is anything other than REAL day -- no not in ALL of scripture.

Also the Ex 20:8-11 summary of that event is in a locked-in hard-wired fashion "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." that not even dedicated darwinists have been able to esxegete to ANY OTHER result -- than a REAL day!

Also, In Genesis 1 Yom is described using "morning and evening", which cannot be confused with an undetermined amount of time or an era.

It is "evening and morning" not "Morning and evening" -- the reason for the distinction is that there are references in the bible to "morning and evening" sequences (not numbered sequence as we have in Gen 1 -- but still sequences) where more than one day is anticipated.

However that is never true with the Gen 1 formula "evening and morning were the Xth-Day"

No case in all of scripture uses that formula for anything but a real day --as you have noted.

Second, Genesis 2:7 it says that "God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Here there is no room for a Christian to say they believe the Bible, but also in evolution because we either came from a puddle of amino acids and God is lying, or God actually built a man out of the soil and gave him life.

True there is NOT "GROUND formed Man out of the dust after soooo many zillions of days".

AND There is NOT even a DARWINIST argument that says "man did not come from lower animals rather man evolved RIGHT OUT OF THE DUST of the ground".

So all the bending and wrenching of the text being attempted by darwinists is simply story telling that does not even fit Darwinism much less the Bible.

Good points all - thanks for sharing them.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think much of the difficulty in all of this is that yom can mean a literal 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.

That is true -- in certain contexts it clearly can .. but not ONE source has been found showing that the term in Ex 20 can be bent as Darwinism needs. Even the Orthodox Jews admit that the Hebrew language in the case of Ex 20 does not allow the level of bending and wrenching that would be required in DArwinISM to switch meanings between "SIX Days you SHALL LABOR.." and "FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE...".

Even they admit it would require an impossible feat of eisegetical insertion to bend it in that way.

And so far we still only have your word for this......

IF you have "imagined" some place where someone IS exegeting Ex 20 to be anything OTHER than a real day -- then why not also "imagine" yourself showing us where that is -- so far you only "admit" that you have done no such thing -- you clearly NEED it to say something "else" in Ex 20:8-11 but you dig up no actual EXAMPLE of even ONE source "doing the math" in your favor in the case of Ex 20.

Hint: I gave you the ALLEXPERTS link and you can easily go there and ASK them yourself -- as they have an open area for questions - IF you think they can help you exegete Ex 20:8-11 to anything OTHER Than the "real day" result everybody SEES in "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS God MADE". When I contact them on that point - they informed me that they had no intention of bending the text to the dictates of Darwinism.

So "I asked FOR YOU" and I gave you directions to the site --- and STILL you do not lift a finger to get your point supported by anything "but your own imagination".

I am surprised that you don't notice yourself not providing the evidence for your argument that it needs. When you posit "there is an easter bunny on the dark side of the moon" then it is up to you to supply your own proof.

Don't keep looking to me to help you with it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think much of the difficulty in all of this is that yom can mean a literal 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.

Yes, this is one complicating factor, but it is also the case that in English - and, I presume, in Hebrew as well - words can be used figuratively, metaphorically or allegorically. Writing and the analysis of writing are both influenced by subjective factors and the substance of my argument is that because of this we cannot be absolutely certain that the conclusions we draw from our analysis are objectively definitive.

Just not in the case of Ex 20 where we have "SIX DAYS YOU SHALL LABOR.. for IN SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." -- the LITERAL 7 day week that we STILL have today comes from that same argument at Sinai -- and the Jews know it still to this day. Impossible to deny what everyone sees -- as much as it would suit darwinism to do so.

There are NO examples in ALL of the Bible where "Evening and morning where the xth-day" means anything but a REAL day.

There are NO examples in ALL of the Bible where "X days you shall labor... for in X days the LORD MADE..." is ever translated to ANYTHING but a "real day" -- not not even once.

Still I am not sure why you even care about this fact since you already argue that the Bible is corrupt. you keep dodging that point.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

.... -- then either USE the objective methods of exegesis to render the text of Ex 20:8-11 OR use something EVEN MORE objective. I am good with that -- just "do something" other than talk about what you might do or what gaps exegesis might leave you with in your efforts to render the text.

There is no wholly objective rendering of the text that allows me to either fully contest or fully agree with your conclusions. This is the point you fail to grasp.

1. Why do you care in that case - you say the text is corrupt anyway.

2. you provide no one - zilch,.. nada not even ONE source arguing for anything but real day in Ex 20:8-11.

3. You already admit that Moses could not possibly be preaching "Darwinism" no matter how horribly you could "imagine" bending and wrenching the text.

Where is the difficulty here for the person willing to accept "the obvious"???

Seems like you are making a difficulty where there is none.

Do you understand that the action of writing is itself necessarily subjective?

God wrote the Ten Commandments with his own finger -- according to the text. Is your argument that "the subjective element is in copying them from stone to paper" into the book of Exodus?

What is your argument there? Do you have "the original tablets and can see a difference between the hebrew on the stones and the hebrew on the paper"??

Do you once again "offer your imagination" as "all the proof necessary to disbelieve scripture"???

Where exactly do you even have an argument here?

Do you understand that the meaning assigned to words by translators is necessarily subjective?

Do you HAVE access to the DSS or to the Hebrew source texts that they are translating from and are you in a position to SHOW that there is an error in the case of Ex 20:8-11 or is this again a case of "imagining a gap" and that "imagination" should be all the evidence we need to doubt God and accept L.K???

Do you understand that the analysis of the meaning of text is necessarily subjective?

could be depending on how freely you abandon Exegesis.

Do you understand that different religions and denominations draw different conclusions from their exegesis of OT verse?

Do you have an example of different Christian groups interpreting the meaning of "day" in Ex 20:8-11 "differently"?? I thought you admitted you have no such example.

Bob said

BAck to the point - SHOW that your views survive Ex 20:8-11 "in the most objective way you know how to use" FOR THE TEXT of Ex 20.

Hint the answer can not be "avoid Ex 20 at all costs".

L.K
Missing the point again. I neither avoid nor engage with Exodus 20:8-11

On the contrary I notice that you avoid EVERY attempt at a rigorous study and rendering of the text AND I notice that your darwinism-at-all-costs solution easily slips in "IF I can imagine it -- than that is all the evidence needed to doubt scripture" as the answer to every difficulty.

as such; I only point to the obvious weaknesses in your claims for absolute objective certainty for your conclusions from exegesis of that or any other biblical verse.

Your argument is an argument against the entire Bible -- good atheism.

It also can not be "imagine stuff in and around Ex 20 as needed". You have to use the actual language IN THE TEXT and SHOW that the Moses' readers are getting something from it other than the glaringly obvious meaning we all see in it.

As opposed to your showing that the hypothetical readers you refer to are getting from it what you claim they are getting from it.

ahhh yes "The OBVIOUS" meaning of the text keeps coming back to bite you especially after you yourself admitted that Moses was no way "preaching Drawinism".

"SIX days you shall labor ... for IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

.. ready set "go".

Unfortunately there's a nasty little full stop/period in that ellipsis between 'labor' and 'for' that rather ruins your assumption that day

How so?

You provide no exegesis to support that argument.

As I have said before, neither you nor anyone else can claim absolute certainty about this; you cannot even know that the story of creation week occurring over seven days was not devised to mimic the already existing seven days of the Jewish week in order to rationalize doctrinal concordance between the two.

We have the Nation of Israel FIRST formed at Sinai and there we do not START with "this is why your nation has been having a 7 day week" RATHER we have THIS is your seven day week. We have in fact "TOMORROW is the Sabbath" in chapter 16 -- a command given to a NEW nation JUST FORMING -- those who prior to this were SLAVES in Egypt and prior to that were simply a patriarchal clan in Caanan. So while they may have known of the 7 day week prior to this time (Jacob is told to fulfill Rachel's "week") long before this -referring to the time he was to work for her -- they were not a NATION until Sinai. They had no priests until then -- no temple service until Sinai. The moment they were a nation, the moment they had temple and services and priests they also had the CREATION account by God as the "origin" for that week as HE stated "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...".

Impossible to ignore.

Your argument is more the atheist or agnostic position "yes but we can not trust the Bible nor the motives of the Bible writers nor the accuracy in what they said".

Good atheism - but all the more reason for so-called "Christian Darwinists" to avoid it.

BTW is Barbarian going along with your "Bible is too corrupt to rely upon" and "Bible writers have the motive of make-believe" in arguing the case in Ex 20:8-11 just "making stuff up" about why they need a seven day weekly cycle?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, we have clearly reached an impasse on the subject of the reliability or otherwise of exegesis as a means of determining objective understanding of biblical text. I believe that I have fully (and frequently!) explained and supported my position as to why I believe your certainty is misplaced. You have just as frequently told me why you think I am wrong. Fair enough; neither of us is going to persuade the other and the notional unbiased readers who may have been following the debate will have to decide for themselves whose arguments have been the more persuasive. I suggest we no longer waste bandwidth on this subject, cease overwhelming several threads with what are pretty much the same arguments repeated over and over, and simply agree to differ on this subject.

 

[BobRyan]

Fortunately we are in luck since all of Christianity DOES accept the objective methods of Exegesis as being VALID and as being the best way to render the text. (Though as you have pointed out - "some groups" would add to that -- their inclination to adjust the objectve exegetical rendering of the text with some complement of man-made-traditions that may be to their liking -- EVEN THOSE groups continue to endorse exegesis)

We are also in luck in this case because this happens to be a Christian message board so that "Bible is correct" is the default position for which "substantive arguments" must be produced to challenge that position. Substantive arguments that far exceed "I can imagine that exegesis is bad or that I don't need to do it to bend the text of scripture" or "I can imagine that the Bible is corrupt".

On an atheist discussion board where you or VZ4Me are the moderator -- you could easily start off assuming "The Bible is corrupt and any Christian that comes here must prove otherwise" -- that would certainly be along the lines that the reader would expect.

But on a Christian message board -- the Bible is going to be generally accepted as a valid accurate document with objective methods for rendering the text "much preferred" over the subjective "bend--and-wrench as it pleases your pre-bias" solution.

I think we both agree on that point.

So I am not convinced it is the "impasse" that you imagine.

I think we also both agree that literally anyone could come to this board -- make wild empty assertion "The text of the Bible does not mean what it appears to say" arguments about things like Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the Creation timeline -- and add to it "And I don't have to offer any objective support for that by rendering the text objectively to show my point" --

Really - literally "anybody" could make such an empty claim.

But the subject for this thread was specifically addressing the idea of stepping up to the plate and looking "in detail" at those "inconvenient Bible texts" (such as Ex 20:8-11 SUMMARIZING the inconvenient timeline of Gen 1-2:3) and then showing FROM THE TEXT that either there is a way to harmonize Moses and Darwin or to admit that the gap clearly exists the way that atheist darwinists like Dawkins and Darwin do AND all Bible believing Christians do --


Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^^ So I guess that's a 'No' then? I have said all I intend to say on the subject and, your sweeping assertions notwithstanding, I will continue to disagree with your determination that exegesis provides a certain, objective understanding of biblical text. You will just have to accept my disagreement on this, I'm afraid, just as I accept your conviction otherwise.

 

[BobRyan]

Fortunately we are in luck since all of Christianity DOES accept the objective methods of Exegesis as being VALID

By contrast the "just say nay" methods of atheists and others who are clearly not Bible believing Christians would argue the 3 points below.

1. The bible can not be trusted in what it claims about historic events since the writers are just ignorant non-scientists bumbling along as best they can! So even if it is the CREATOR talking about HIS Creative work (Ex 20:8-11 timeline summary of Gen 1-2:3) - it is not trustworthy. The text is corrupt.

2. The Bible can not be trusted even to accurately state who is writing given book - since it is imagined that authors will come along later and write books (like Daniel) CLAIMING to live in the 6th century BC and so writing supernatural PROPHECY -- when really they are just some not-daniel unknown author writing HISTORY in the 2nd or 3rd century AS IF it was prophecy from the 6th century B.C.

3. The Bible can not be trusted EVEN to accurately state what those deceitful authors said -- since we do not have the autographs of the original text and we can easily IMAGINE that the original text said "something else".

L.K
As I have explained before, I believe the Bible is the work of imperfect human beings attempting to interpret creation and divine revelation as best they could given their limited understanding of the world around them. As such, I believe that the Bible has nothing to say on the subject of the theory of evolution, nor would I expect it to

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=210#p395048

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR
http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778


In essence the Bible rejecting just-say-nay group that clearly includes atheists would call the CONTRAST to that bible-rejecting model "the take the Bible as if it were true" model and they would always be inclined to insert the word "literal" in that label some place.

However in 2 Peter 1 bible believing Christians are informed that "Holy men of old MOVED by the Holy Spirit SPOKE FROM GOD".

We are also told in Romans 1 that even pagans are "without excuse" for the "invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been MADE".

No wonder bible believing Christians EXPECT that nature will SHOW itself to be DESIGNED.

And lo and behold HERE IT IS -- SEEN just as we might expect!!


Animated Cell shows Protein Synth – argues ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n ... re=related


ID argument discussed regarding Animated Cell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxZ3bhQpz5s



Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Evolutionists appear fearful when it comes to the Smithsonian's plan to show "Privileged Planet" movie for visitors.

The next step was to alert the academic community to stay away from the filmâ€â€for example, an archeology doctoral student reported that an email had been sent to the entire department of anthropology at George Washington University, “warning†everyone to not watch the movie (Steiner, 2005).
http://www.trueorigin.org/privplansmith01.asp

Wow - how coincidental that we just saw them "warning everyone not to watch" again this year when the movie "Expelled no intelligence allowed" was shown.


And as we saw in Dover Pennsylvania the main goal of atheists darwinists there was to urge that students "not be told ABOUT the EXISTENCE of the book Of Pandas and People in the LIBRARY"!

By contrast the Bible believing Christians can watch it all!

It is amazing what freedom there is in Christ as compared to more atheist solutions to information.

Bob

 

[Gabe]

Barbarian observes:
Genesis directly rules out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

And how does it do this?

God says that the earth brought forth living things. Something scientists are just beginning to confirm.

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Life, says God, was not created ex nihilo, but rather was done by the agency of nature. That's how God does almost everything in this world.

Barbarian, the earth is fertile meaning it can support life. When a farmer plants a field of corn it grows from seeds, not directly from soil. It is the earth that nourishes the life and provides a place for it to spring up. This is what it means for the earth to "bring forth life", it means that it is the place in which it grows.

Now, my take on evolution is this: First, It is against the Bible to say that it could've taken millions of years for life to evolve. The word Yom is indeed used in different contexts throughout the Bible, but whenever it is accompanied by a number (1st, 2nd,etc...,) as it is in Genesis 1, it is clearly defined as an actual day. Also, In Genesis 1 Yom is described using "morning and evening", which cannot be confused with an undetermined amount of time or an era. Second, Genesis 2:7 it says that "God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Here there is no room for a Christian to say they believe the Bible, but also in evolution because we either came from a puddle of amino acids and God is lying, or God actually built a man out of the soil and gave him life.

Hebrews 11:1-3 "1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2) For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (KJV)

I'm not arguing for or against the Evolution theory, quite frankly because I've come to realise that I do not know enough about it. But I will say that I disagree with Christians who seem to think that the only way to interpret the Bible correctly and to be a 'Bible believing Christian' is to take everything it says as 100% Literal.

The reason I disagree is as follows:

All 'Bible believing Christians' (including I) have heard the parable of the Mustard seed no doubt, in it Christ makes a reference to the mustard seed as "the least of all seeds" when we in this modern day and age can google it and find that it is in fact NOT the least of all seeds.

Now if we use your method of a completely literal translation of the Bible then we MUST assume that Christ (God) was either lying (bad) or was unaware that there were seeds smaller than the mustard seed which would put serious doubts in peoples minds as to the validity of His claim to be the Son of God.

I for one as a God fearing loving (and Bible believing) Christian would never think either but how about you?

In my mind there is an obvious answer behind the discrepancy which you seem to be ignoring: the third option which is Christ/God speaking to people in a language and manner suitable to their understanding of the world around THEM.

If Christ tried to speak to the Jews of 2000 years ago with the current understanding of the world, the parable of the Mustard seed would of went something like this "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field: which indeed is the least of all seeds...well actually its not! The least of all seeds belongs to certain epiphytic orchids which are found in tropical rainforests and they weigh in at only a 35 millionth of an ounce, excuse me, what was that? You don't know what a rain forest is, well its a relatively warm and dense evergreen forest with an annual rainfall of at least 406 cm's or 160 inches....why are you interrupting me again? An inch is the name of a unit or length in a ...... So and on and so on

The same may be applicable to Genesis. The Bible is hardly going to say "and the Lord God formed man from a puddle of amino acid" because this explanation would have no meaning to the people of that time and it is a concept the would have failed to grasp.

Also Barbarians understanding of scripture (I think) is just as (if not more) valid than yours. God said "and let the earth bring forth living things" this statement leaves things open and if he thinks it was evolution that the earth used as a way of bringing forth life then so be it because the Bible DOES NOT say "and let the earth be fertile to make it possible for things to find nourishment in its soil and grow."

 

[BobRyan]

It may be instructive to define terms first --

"Bible believing" -

By that I mean "Factually correct" rather than "fallaciously fraudulent and flawed".

So that means

1. The author really is the author
2. When the author claims to record real events - his record can be trusted to be factual
3. The Bible is it's own interpreter (Exegesis) -
4. "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God" 2Tim 3:16.
5. "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" 2Peter 1.

So that means for example that while Christ is not a "wooden door" in John 10 HE IS literally the Son of God as we see in John 1.

L.K
and my question was directed towards ensuring that I was not misrepresenting you on this. For many Christians, the Bible (and the OT in particular) is metaphorically and/or allegorically and/or poetically true, while still containing relevant historical information as well.

As our atheist friends point out for us here - the whole argument for atheism is to assert that the Bible is not factually correct -- but it has good moral stories in an Aesop's fables kinda way.

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

Some on this board who claim they are NOT using the Bible-has-trusted fact model have argued something like this --

1. The author is not really the author
2. The character in the story is not the real historic character
3. The text we are reading is not really the text written (in terms of content)
4. The facts (events) the author describes can not be trusted.

The euphamism they use for that Aesop's fable model above is "not taking the Bible literally".

It is left as "an exercise for the reader" to count the number of "inconvenient details in Gene 1-2:3" that the author needs to ignore in the post prior to this one - to make his argument.

Bob

 

[Gabe]

I'm not sure if the above post was meant in reply to my previous post but if it was then:
Unlike the door analogy, the claim that 'the mustard seed is the least of all seeds' is clearly a statement of fact made by Christ to be used in His parable, and as we are all now aware that this statement of fact is untrue then the only way it can make any sense is if He had taken into consideration the worldly knowledge of the intended listeners. He was speaking to Jews who would of had no knowledge and possibly no interest in worldly trivia about seeds and scientific theories that would in no way advance the overall message of the Gospel and I think the same could possibly apply to Genesis. If Genesis spoke of Gravity, ToE , Dinosaurs, DNA or even simple things like Photosynthesis then the Jews would have assumed that they were the ravings of a lunatic. The validity of the Holy Bible does not rest on the downfall of the Theory of Evolution and vice versa.

 

[Rick W]

Genesis spoke of God and His power of creation. We may have advanced technologically but how much have we gained in the knowledge of God? I believe in the eyes of the ancients we have actually lost much. In this respect they were the more advanced people.

 

[BobRyan]

Gabriel - As you noted - if you take into account the context of the author -- and of the speaker (Christ the Son of God) and the audience (Jewish listeners) you can easily set the scope for a sweeping statement about "mustard seeds". So they are not going to spend a lot of time looking at the answer here (for example)

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/mustardseed.html

Where the exegetical principle of "context" is all-important.

In truth - Darwinists are more interested in discounting the very LAW of God - "For in SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that are in them" than picking apart the mustard seed.

If Genesis spoke of Gravity, ToE , Dinosaurs, DNA or even simple things like Photosynthesis then the jews would have assumed that they were the ravings of a lunatic.

Certainly they DID know what a "day is" what "evening and morning" are and what a tree is - what people are.. etc So while we do not see Moses expanding our idea of "what gravity is" we DO see him telling his readers about the origin of life - and of day and night. Things they were very familiar with.

The long form of his timeline is found in Gen 1-2:3 as a chronological sequence consisting of seven numbered evenings and mornings, timeboxed events confined to each (rotation of earth) evening and morning unit of time.

The short summarized form of that same timeline is found in Ex 20:8-11 and there Moses records the fact that God said the Genesis week is the same as the week at Sinai - a statement codified in "law" not in Aesop's-fable-ism story.

How much "more than that" is known by God is anyone's guess. Probably "ALL".

The validity of the Holy Bible does not rest on the downfall of the Theory of Evolution and viceversa.

"Belief" in darwinism leads logically to arguing that the Bible is false in the details of it's claim about "For in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth" as we are told here
http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

Notice the argument they make there about "what happens" if you gut the Bible of all of it's facts.

No Creator in Gen 1 and Ex 20:8-11 so no Romans 1 "invisible attributes of God clearly SEEN in the things He has MADE"

No Adam -- so no Romans 5.
No Garden of Eden -- no Gospel needed -- no fall of man.
No Genesis - day 6 where both man and animals are given plant food (not each other) as food...

Here in the link above we see True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR

 

[Gabe]

Thanks Bob, i'll have a look.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Gabriel
I'm not arguing for or against the Evolution theory, quite frankly because i've come to realise that i do not know enough about it
But i will say that i disagree with Christians who seem to think that the only way to interperate the Bible correctly and to be a 'Bible believing Christian' is to take everything it says as 100% Literal.
The reason i disagree is as follows:
All 'Bible believing Christians' (including I) have heard the parable of the Mustard seed no doubt, in it Christ makes a reference to the mustard seed as "the least of all seeds" when we in this modern day and age can google it and find that it is in fact NOT the least of all seeds.

Now if we use your method of a completely literal translation of the Bible then we MUST assume that Christ (God) was either lying (bad) or was unaware that there were seeds smaller than the mustard seed which would put serious doubts in peoples minds as to the validity of His claim to be the Son of God.
I for one as a God fearing loving (and Bible believing) Christian would never think either but how about you?
In my mind there is an obvious answer behind the discrepancy which you seem to be ignoring: the third option which is Christ/God speaking to people in a language and manner suitable to their understanding of the world around THEM.....

I think this is a rational view point.

To argue against science with scripture ignores the actual intent of the Bible, and vice versa.

The Bible was not written to be a science book, and science is not designed to argue against any religion.

Dawkins does do this, and the majority of the scientific community does no agree with his use of science in this way.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks Bob, i'll have a look.

While you are comparing those Bible positions against the atheist POV -

Take a look at this - from actual "science" -- not merely "stories about how one thing came from another" that we are all so familiar with today.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

Bob