The Bible as literature

[Diogenes]

Although it is true that "a lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself," you've forgotten one of the fundamental rules of argument - the side making the positive existential claim is the one with the burden of proof.

I haven't forgotten anything-and I'm not the one making positive existential claims here.

To claim that there was a global flood a la Noah's Ark IS a positive existential claim.

The burden of proof is on those people who claim that Noah's Ark actually happened, not on those who state that no evidence for it exists.

And when have I ever claimed that there was one? All I have said is that there is no evidence that...

Noah's Ark is a cute story. Nothing more.

You are the one stating as fact that it didn't exist, without any scientific or historical reason, mearly your own predjudices. All I have said is that it could have existed, and that if so it could also explain some of the other parts of Genesis that hurt your head (the differance in lifespans, to begin with).

The laws of physics haven't changed since prior times. For some events, such as the flood, it's not only a matter of a lack of evidence for it, there is evidence showing it never happened, via vast parts of the Earth that have not been covered by water in the last several million years, at least.

Exactly how do you know that the laws of physics haven't changed since prior times? Specificly that entropy wasn't introduced in the Edenic Fall or that the speed of light hasn't been changing since then.

Nice selective quoting though. Better luck next spin.

No selective quoting, and the argument stands. It is nonsensical to put forth the proposition that physical constants aren't (or haven't always been) just because it is the only way to patch the gaping hole in your argument.

Actually what Setterfield's theory (which I've mentioned before) posits based on various measurements of C over the last 500 so years is that the speed of light has been measurably decreasing. Just because you take it as an article of faith that this is impossible, doesn't make it any less plausible, or your assumptions 'science'.

And I don't need to 'patch up the gaping hole in my argument', since I'm not making any argument which depends on said theory. Mearly pointing out the spuriousness of your claims.

I'm not suggesting we ignore anything-just suggesting that those with an open mind consider the possibility that their uniformitarian assumptions might be flawed.

Assuming out of hand that "uniformitarian assumptions are flawed" without any rationale cause is nonsense. Why should anyone, especially scientists, be willing to throw out "uniformitarian assumptions" for the SOLE exception of patching Biblical holes?

If they are actually interested in science rather than dogma, they would consider the evidence. You actually have more in common with the Inquisition Church or the prosecutors in the Scopes trial, crying herasy (ie 'not a scientist') anytime someone questions your assumptions or beliefs.

And BTW, when did 'consider the possibility' become "Assuming out of hand" "without any rationale cause".

As far as your unfounded positive existental claims about what the Bible is and isn't, you have exactly nothing to base them on except your personal biases.

Right. I'm the ONLY person who believes that the Bible is a beautiful compilation meant to teach moral and religious truths, not scientific ones. Unfortunately for you, there's a ton of highly-regarded academics, including SUNY Distinguished Professor Dr. William Cook, who also agree with me. In fact, Dr. Cook helped reinforce that stand with me when I took a few of his classes. He is a devout Christian yet has no problem with the FACT that the Bible is not meant to be understood literally or as a historically accurate (in the modern sense) or scientifically accurate text.

I'm sure you and Bill Cook aren't the only ones who agree that your common personal beliefs are FACTS. It still isn't science, or compelling, or anything but a sign of your own (common) closemindedness.

[RadioFan]

Another point about taking the Bible literally -- the OT, in particular ...

How can anyone take every single thing in it literally when it has been translated multiple times? By definition, translation from one language to another ends up conveying a variation of meanings. Not to mention how languages change over time. Is ancient Hebrew the same as modern Hebrew? Is ancient Greek the same?

This is part of the reason I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable with the idea that stories in the OT are allegory and not to be taken as history nor science.

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Clearly, if I were to take the Bible literally, Pi is equal to 3.

They made statements about the world around them, based on what they knew. In some cases it was close, in some cases it wasn't. That doesn't diminish the inspirational quality of the book nor its significance. It only illustrates that not everything in it can be taken literally.

[Terry in Crapchester]

SUNY Distinguished Professor Dr. William Cook,

Off-topic here, but is he the one who wrote a biography of Barber Conable? If so, I met him at a party once, and he wound up sending me an advance copy, gratis. I always appreciated that.

[Diogenes]

Clearly, if I were to take the Bible literally, Pi is equal to 3.

Clearly if you interpret it to mean Pi=3, then what you believe it says can't be taken literaly.

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/pi.htm

As far as the point about translation, most literalists hold that the original text (in the original languages) is infalible, not nessecaraly any particular translation. And assuming that there are translational errors over time discounts out of hand the rather anal process Hebrew scribes went through to copy texts, not to mention any possibility that it is divinly inspired. Your assumptions of textual errors over time are still just that, unfounded assumtions.


And before MtLR claims that I am obligated to prove beyond a shodow of a doubt that every word of the Bible is the same as originally writen, don't bother. I haven't said that. Just that the assumption that it isn't has no basis historicly or scientificly.

[Diogenes]

And no, there isn't anything about 'talking snakes' in Genesis 3 either.

Except for people who wish to hyper-literalize the text in order to 'debunk' it, of course.

[poptart]

He is a devout Christian yet has no problem with the FACT that the Bible is not meant to be understood literally or as a historically accurate (in the modern sense) or scientifically accurate text.

Fact ... ?


I laughed.

[Diogenes]

He is a devout Christian yet has no problem with the FACT that the Bible is not meant to be understood literally or as a historically accurate (in the modern sense) or scientifically accurate text.

Fact ... ?

No...

FACT.

[poptart]

haha, yeah.

Btw, your link on the 'talking snake' doesn't work, Dio.

[Diogenes]

I don't know why it doesn't link. It's kind of long if you want to scroll down...


19. THE SERPENT OF GENESIS 3.
In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Ap. 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake : no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3 : and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs.

But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in v. 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the following words could be addressed to him :-- "Thing heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness : I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (v. 17).

Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in Ezek. 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezek. 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (vv. 1-10). The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Gen. 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezek. 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in v. 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring, of course, to his fall). So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Prov. 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1Sam. 23:22. Ps. 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Gen. 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Gen. 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated (*2) by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure Hypocatastasis (see Ap. 6) or Implication; it no more means snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen. 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Tim. 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matt. 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in vv. 14, 15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said.

When it is said in v. 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heal of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. When it is said (v. 15), "He shall crush thy head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair. It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God. This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Rom. 16:20). This again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.

The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Heb. 2:14. 1John 3:8. Rev. 20:1-3, 10). What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech?

It is the same with the other Figures used in v. 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go". This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in v. 15. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Ps. 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Prov. 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Gal. 3:14, 15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Ps. 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow and subjugation.

If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it was more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Cor. 11:3, 14).

It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle (*3).

It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" : the former being based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional belief : for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.

The temptation of "the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said?" The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar question "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son".

All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said.

The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to omit the word "freely" (3:2, cp. 2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, cp. 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).

It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8, 14, 17).

The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented; the latter temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.

The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime and immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs. Whenever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan". This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the newspapers of the world, and is treated as "general literature". This is why anything in favor of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial".

This is why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen. 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps. 91:11. He himself could say "It is written" (Matt. 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied.

This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.


http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBra ... end19.html


More FatuousAntiChristianTripe in 5...4...3...

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I find it funnier than heck when Biblical literalists go to the "different interpretations based on translation" card to prop up their arguments.

Those of us who believe that certain portions of the Bible are factually questionable and certain aren't have the problem of trying to explain why we buy certain portions and not others. It also opens up the can of worms regarding the veracity of the entire book itself (i.e., if you believe that the Bible is in merely allegorical with regards to Genesis, in error with regards to some science, etc., then how do you know it's also not in error with regards to religious claims?). It's a difficult process and has led to the many denominational differences.

On the other hand, those of us who hold the aforementioned view don't find ourselves painted into an intellectual corner, trying to argue that every jot and tittle of Scripture is accurate in every sense, despite the obvious contradictions within itself and with scientific and historical facts (age of the Earth, no global flood during civilization, etc.).

Biblical literalists have a HUGE problem. For them to adhere to their strictly fundamentalist, literal view of the Bible, they have to contort and twist known historical and scientific realities or bend their own definition of "literalist" to suddenly adopt an "interpretationist" mode, resorting to "what the authors of the time intended," translation issues, symbolism of the time, etc.

Biblical literalists cannnot have it both ways if they want to be intellectually honest. You cannot argue that the Bible as we read it now is 100% the way it should be understood (Earth created in seven 24-hours days, woman from man's rib, bats as birds, spiders as insects) and then shift gears to interpretation to patch the obvious holes in that line of "logic."

The SECOND that a so-called "literalist" goes to the "translation/understand the time it was written" card, they have utterly ceased to be a Biblical literalist, whether or not they'll admit it. The very second that they concede that understanding the translation is important or that certain cultural & historical situations must be taken into account, they have taken the path that the rational Bible readers have used for centuries.

[poptart]

........despite the obvious contradictions within itself and with scientific and historical facts (age of the Earth, no global flood during civilization, etc.).

It's only slightly disconcerting when a 'science teacher' continues to use the word fact in place of belief.

Your take on the age of the earth is not fact, nor is it fact that there has been no global flood during civilization.


Btw, Bible literalist does not describe me.

Bible believer, that's me.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

It's only slightly disconcerting when a 'science teacher' continues to use the word fact in place of belief.

I use the word "fact" to denote a conclusion based upon scholarly consensus that has been backed by scientific evidence and historical support from multiple sources.

Your take on the age of the earth is not fact, nor is it fact that there has been no global flood during civilization.

The age of the Earth accepted by rational folks is based upon multiple corroboration of evidence from different scientific fields including physics, astronomy, and geology.

The only "proof" that Young Earthers have is a fairy tale.

That the Earth is older than 5-7 thousand years in not in dispute by any sane individual with any education.

As for a global flood after the rise of human civilization, once again, there is a complete lack of evidence for it, other than myths. Period.

To relegate scientifically and historical conclusion that have been arrived at through decades or centuries of accumulated data collection and/or experimentation to mere "belief," on the same level as the childlike, naive belief in a young Earth, a real Garden of Eden, etc. is just desperate.

The true "bias" that exists in these debates is in those who will refuse to seriously consider that any part of the Bible is anything short of inerrant in any way and that it some of it may not be some "divinely inspired" and instead be merely the work of men. The fact that folks who hold this view dismiss the religious views of non-literalist denominations, dismiss scientific evidence, dismiss scholars anthropological and archeological findings, all in the name of clinging to a simplistic view of God and our relationship with Him, shows how biased some folks truly are.

[poptart]

Mike, you're well aware that you're trying to establish fact where fact does not exist.

You're also well aware of evidence supporting a young earth, the flood, etc, etc ...



Actually, every sentence you typed there is off the mark, but this one is particularly egregious.

That the Earth is older than 5-7 thousand years in not in dispute by any sane individual with any education.

That is not only false, but you know it to be false.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Mike, you're well aware that you're trying to establish fact where fact does not exist.

You're also well aware of evidence supporting a young earth, the flood, etc, etc ...

There is NO evidence that supports a young earth. None. Nada.

The reason that there are absolutely no geology or earth science textbooks that even offer the "young Earth" hypothesis as a viable one is not due to any worldwide, atheistic conspiracy on the part of scientists, science teachers, and textbook manufacturers, but due to the FACT that we know that the earth is billions of years old.

That the Earth is older than 5-7 thousand years in not in dispute by any sane individual with any education.

That is not only false, but you know it to be false.[/quote]

Look "Kreskin," what I know is that the absolute, incontrovertible fact of the matter is that the Earth is a hell of a lot older than 5,000-7,000 years old and that there is, once again, no evidence to support that view.

What possible reason do you Biblical literalists think scientists across disciplines and all over the world have for allegedly "subverting" the Bible? Do you think we go out deliberately to debunk the Bible? That we set that out as one of our major goals? Do you honestly believe that at some point in a scientist's or historian's training, that we're taken aside and told to keep any facts supporting the Bible's accuracy secret? For what purpose? How the hell would that whole secrecy thing work?

What has become apparent is that the claim of "bias" is being leveled AT:

- human endeavors (science and history) that use open debate, peer review, and publication to put their efforts and conclusions out there for people, both within and outside their fields to read, discuss, and criticize. These endeavors make a point of being self-correcting disciplines, using the aforementioned techniques, as well as a system of acquiring knowledge and testing hypotheses (the "scientific method") to revise hypotheses and make even paradigm-shifting changes as new, stronger evidence is accumulated to overthrow old ideas (e.g. switching from Newtonian to more Einsteinian physics, from simple Darwinian mechanisms to the "modern synthesis," which includes findings in genetics, embryology, etc.). Science admits that it has made errors in the past (which were corrected through the processes just mentioned), will continue to make errors that will be corrected, and has limits on what it can study,

while the charges of "bias" are being leveled FROM:

- individuals who start out with the unalterable, unquestioned premise that a book known as "the Bible" is a 100% inerrant text with regards to not just faith and morals, but with regards to scientific knowledge, historical accuracy, etc. As part of this premise, it is argued that any findings or conclusions on the parts of human science, historians, etc. that contradict the Bible MUST be incorrect. No amount of evidence from various fields will ever be considered enough to overturn a Biblical claim, since the Bible is 100% accurate is all things at all times.

Now, given the above....which side is the one that is TRULY biased?

[RadioFan]

Clearly, if I were to take the Bible literally, Pi is equal to 3.

Clearly if you interpret it to mean Pi=3, then what you believe it says can't be taken literaly.

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/pi.htm

But does the bible claim this?

No.

The bible claims that there is an ADDED brim that is a "hand width" thick that was added onto the cast metal
bowl. That brim is WIDER than the original bowl.

Ah, but the Bible doesn't SAY that now does it?

I guess it's OK for someone to interpret what the Bible really means in this case, when it fact, it doesn't say so itself.

[Diogenes]

The bias would exist on the part of those spouting the FatuousAntiChristianTripe as if it was something other than their personal beliefs. As far as...

These endeavors make a point of being self-correcting disciplines, using the aforementioned techniques, as well as a system of acquiring knowledge and testing hypotheses (the "scientific method") to revise hypotheses and make even paradigm-shifting changes as new, stronger evidence is accumulated to overthrow old ideas (e.g. switching from Newtonian to more Einsteinian physics, from simple Darwinian mechanisms to the "modern synthesis,"

That would be funny if it wasn't so hypopcritical and stupid. In actuality anyone who dares question the materialist orthodoxy is denigrated as 'non-scientific' 'fundamentalist' etc out of hand, their views and evidence banished from consideration.

But Keep the FACT coming....

[Diogenes]

Clearly, if I were to take the Bible literally, Pi is equal to 3.

Clearly if you interpret it to mean Pi=3, then what you believe it says can't be taken literaly.

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/pi.htm

But does the bible claim this?

No.

The bible claims that there is an ADDED brim that is a "hand width" thick that was added onto the cast metal
bowl. That brim is WIDER than the original bowl.

Ah, but the Bible doesn't SAY that now does it?

I guess it's OK for someone to interpret what the Bible really means in this case, when it fact, it doesn't say so itself.

It makes more sense than deliberatly misinterpreting it to say Pi=3.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The bias would exist on the part of those spouting the FatuousAntiChristianTripe as if it was something other than their personal beliefs.

Being Christian has absolutely nothing to do with believing in the literal truth of Genesis. Plenty of Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that St. Augustine also fits that bill.

To equate nonacceptance of Biblical literalism to "AntiChristianity" is a baselss smear.

And you know it.

In actuality anyone who dares question the materialist orthodoxy is denigrated as 'non-scientific' 'fundamentalist' etc out of hand, their views and evidence banished from consideration.

In other words, you haven't got a leg to stand on with regards to your assertions because Western science as practiced for the last few hundred years gets in your way. Darn those old scientists across the world, refusing to set aside empirically proven data and strongly-supported hypotheses just so some Jewish fairy tales can be called "true!"

Same old, Dio...when all else fails, go to the "materialist" card.

Why not bust out the old "Darwinian fundamentalist" lie again? Hmmmm? Just for old time sake?

[Diogenes]

The bias would exist on the part of those spouting the FatuousAntiChristianTripe as if it was something other than their personal beliefs.

Being Christian has absolutely nothing to do with believing in the literal truth of Genesis. Plenty of Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that St. Augustine also fits that bill.

To equate nonacceptance of Biblical literalism to "AntiChristianity" is a baselss smear.

And you know it.

Of course I never said anything about anyone being Christian or not. Deluded Christians are perfectly capable of parroting Anti-Christian dogma, just as deluded Americans can embrace Anti-American ideology. And there is a differance between "nonacceptance of Biblical literalism" and stating as a FACT that all of the penteuch is basicly bullshit. To deny even the possibility that God could have acted in ways your finite mind doesn't understand is at best juvenile, at worst blasphemous.

In actuality anyone who dares question the materialist orthodoxy is denigrated as 'non-scientific' 'fundamentalist' etc out of hand, their views and evidence banished from consideration.

Same old, Dio...when all else fails, go to the "materialist" card.

Why not bust out the old "Darwinian fundamentalist" lie again? Hmmmm? Just for old time sake?

What did you think I was talking about?

you've forgotten one of the fundamental rules of argument - the side making the positive existential claim is the one with the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on those people who claim that ~Darwinism~ actually happened, not on those who state that no evidence for it exists.

And yet when it comes to Darwinism, not only do you change your tune drasticly, but anyone who even sugests considering flaws in the theory is suddenly 'non-scientific'.


Spin on, little top.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Of course I never said anything about anyone being Christian or not. Deluded Christians are perfectly capable of parroting Anti-Christian dogma, just as deluded Americans can embrace Anti-American ideology.

What constitutes "deluded" Christians? Those who refuse to walk in lockstep with a literalist reading? Who decides who is "deluded?"

And there is a differance between "nonacceptance of Biblical literalism" and stating as a FACT that all of the penteuch is basicly bullshit. To deny even the possibility that God could have acted in ways your finite mind doesn't understand is at best juvenile, at worst blasphemous.

Which is more juvenille - to believe that the Earth is billions of years old and has developed according to natural laws discerned through human science...or that an all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible spirit in the sky popped things into existence by means completely at odds with what we know to be true in nature?

Which is more juvenille - to use your human mind, senses, and hands to learn about the world and accept it, or to continue to believe in fanciful tales of nonexistent floods with magical boats carrying animals "two by two?"

Which is more juvenille - to accept that the Bible was written by scientifically illiterate and historically-limited people trying to make sense of the world around them, or to continue to hold to the childlike ignorance that wants to believe that the Bible is a science text, history text, real estate document, holds the answers to all things if read right (sort of a printed Magic Eight Ball...).

In actuality anyone who dares question the materialist orthodoxy is denigrated as 'non-scientific' 'fundamentalist' etc out of hand, their views and evidence banished from consideration.

And yet when it comes to Darwinism, not only do you change your tune drasticly, but anyone who even sugests considering flaws in the theory is suddenly 'non-scientific'.

That is a big fat lie and you know it. In fact, IN THIS VERY THREAD, I addressed the fact that Darwin's original hypotheses HAVE been revised, specifically in light of additional data from geology, genetics, embryology, developmental biology. If evolutionists were truly "fundies" as you lyingly continue to describe them, then we all would be sworn to adhere to every word of Darwin's original arguments as put forth in the 19th century. Instead, we use him as a launching point, a pioneer, from whom the original hypotheses on the mechanisms of natural selection were first put forth but then needed to be modified since obvious flaws (due to a lack of scientific knowledge on genetics, homeo boxes, etc.) existed. The modern understanding of evolution, in fact, is referred to as the "modern synthesis."

To refer to evolutionists as "fundies" for revering Darwin for his early, admittedly primitive (even on his own part)explanation of natural selection is as silly as claiming we're "fundies" for calling Mendel the "Father of Genetics" and still using Punnett squares in school, despite the advances in modern genetic knowledge.

Your claim that evolutionists are "fundies" has always been, and will always be an utter and complete lie, and you always knew it.

Then again, Biblical literalists have always been willing to set aside little inconveniences like "truth" when it suited their needs. Kind of a shame, actually, since I had always thought that lying and bearing false witness were sins....

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

Rack you guys for an entertaining arguement.

To deny even the possibility that God could have acted in ways your finite mind doesn't understand is at best juvenile, at worst blasphemous.[/b]

Yet, those that "truely believe" cannot extend the same consideration to the opposite possibility.

carry on...

Oops, I see Mike already has ...

[Diogenes]

Of course I never said anything about anyone being Christian or not. Deluded Christians are perfectly capable of parroting Anti-Christian dogma, just as deluded Americans can embrace Anti-American ideology.

What constitutes "deluded" Christians? Those who refuse to walk in lockstep with a literalist reading? Who decides who is "deluded?"

A) Again,' walking in lockstep with a literalist reading' is slightly different than stating as a FACT that there is no God as he is described in the scriptures-as you directly imply in the folowing quote.

2) And I decide, of course. Didn't they tell you?

And there is a differance between "nonacceptance of Biblical literalism" and stating as a FACT that all of the penteuch is basicly bullshit. To deny even the possibility that God could have acted in ways your finite mind doesn't understand is at best juvenile, at worst blasphemous.

Which is more juvenille - to believe that the Earth is billions of years old and has developed according to natural laws discerned through human science...or that an all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible spirit in the sky popped things into existence by means completely at odds with what we know to be true in nature?

Which is more juvenille - to use your human mind, senses, and hands to learn about the world and accept it, or to continue to believe in fanciful tales of nonexistent floods with magical boats carrying animals "two by two?"

Which is more juvenille - to accept that the Bible was written by scientifically illiterate and historically-limited people trying to make sense of the world around them, or to continue to hold to the childlike ignorance that wants to believe that the Bible is a science text, history text, real estate document, holds the answers to all things if read right (sort of a printed Magic Eight Ball...).

The parts italicized above are pretty childish, since you asked.

In actuality anyone who dares question the materialist orthodoxy is denigrated as 'non-scientific' 'fundamentalist' etc out of hand, their views and evidence banished from consideration.

And yet when it comes to Darwinism, not only do you change your tune drasticly, but anyone who even sugests considering flaws in the theory is suddenly 'non-scientific'.

That is a big fat lie and you know it. In fact, IN THIS VERY THREAD, I addressed the fact that Darwin's original hypotheses HAVE been revised, specifically in light of additional data from geology, genetics, embryology, developmental biology. If evolutionists were truly "fundies" as you lyingly continue to describe them, then we all would be sworn to adhere to every word of Darwin's original arguments as put forth in the 19th century. Instead, we use him as a launching point, a pioneer, from whom the original hypotheses on the mechanisms of natural selection were first put forth but then needed to be modified since obvious flaws (due to a lack of scientific knowledge on genetics, homeo boxes, etc.) existed. The modern understanding of evolution, in fact, is referred to as the "modern synthesis."

Spoken like a true believer. And yet, anytime someone questions the fundamental soundness of your prophet's little theory as they do with intelligent design, you ignore all the evidence, break out the ad hominems, and close your minds as tight as possible.

Then again, Biblical literalists have always been willing to set aside little inconveniences like "truth" when it suited their needs. Kind of a shame, actually, since I had always thought that lying and bearing false witness were sins....

That doesn't seem to stop you from posting.

[Diogenes]

Rack you guys for an entertaining arguement.

To deny even the possibility that God could have acted in ways your finite mind doesn't understand is at best juvenile, at worst blasphemous.

Yet, those that "truely believe" cannot extend the same consideration to the opposite possibility.

I'm willing to consider anything supported by logic and the evidence. If Lab Rat ever comes up with anything like that it would be refreshing. And for the record, I've stated before that those like Randall Terry for example, who claim that anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they do aren't Christian (in his case, anyone who is pro-abortion) are blasphemers.

I have no idea, who is, and who isn't a Christian, let alone guessing because of some idiotic rantings on a BB. That is for Christ to decide.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Again,' walking in lockstep with a literalist reading' is slightly different than stating as a FACT that there is no God as he is described in the scriptures-as you directly imply in the folowing quote.

My argument is that the Jews' limited understanding of the world colored their view of God and how they portray Him and His creation. Their limited understanding is why their science is flat out wrong in several instances and why their history is also lacking in corroboration in several spots (e.g., there's no Egyptian records of a mass Jewish exodus or even slave Jewish labor being used for the pyramids). If the Scripture writers were all truly "divinely inspired," you'd think that God would have given them some inkling of genetics, cladistics, meteorology, geology, etc. But nope, those mistakes just sit there...

I do not believe in "Noah's Flood" or an actual garden of Eden or giants walking on Earth and mixing with humans. This in no way undermines my Christian belief system or demands that sit back and re-evaluate my faith. They're frigging fairy tales. Period.

And yet when it comes to Darwinism, not only do you change your tune drasticly, but anyone who even sugests considering flaws in the theory is suddenly 'non-scientific'.

That is a big fat lie and you know it. In fact, IN THIS VERY THREAD, I addressed the fact that Darwin's original hypotheses HAVE been revised, specifically in light of additional data from geology, genetics, embryology, developmental biology. If evolutionists were truly "fundies" as you lyingly continue to describe them, then we all would be sworn to adhere to every word of Darwin's original arguments as put forth in the 19th century. Instead, we use him as a launching point, a pioneer, from whom the original hypotheses on the mechanisms of natural selection were first put forth but then needed to be modified since obvious flaws (due to a lack of scientific knowledge on genetics, homeo boxes, etc.) existed. The modern understanding of evolution, in fact, is referred to as the "modern synthesis."

Spoken like a true believer. And yet, anytime someone questions the fundamental soundness of your prophet's little theory as they do with intelligent design, you ignore all the evidence, break out the ad hominems, and close your minds as tight as possible.

Really? My arguments against "intelligent design" have more to do with the utterly unscientific arguments they put forth and the lies ID proponents put forth (like your referring to evolutionists as "fundies").

You're a broken record, singing a bad song off-key.

You have been shown to be a liar within this very thread. Your claim that evolutionists are "fundies" has been debunked utterly, and yet you plod on, now breaking out the "closed mind" argument. Fanciful speculation over supernatural beings has no place in science, and nor do supernatural explanations like an "intelligent designer" (whose identity as the Judeo-Christian God is transparent to anyone with a brain) have a place in science. You and your ID crowd have lost on the battlegrounds of science, in the courts, and here. If you want to buy into Jewish folklore 100%, then go ahead, but please keep your mythology out of the science classroom. Oh, wait, that's right - the courts and common sense have taken care of that for us.

It's not being "open minded" to completely toss out scientifically proven assumptions for the sole exception of Biblical credibility. The Bible hasn't earned any kind of "pass" that exempts it from scientific or historical scrutiny. The rules cannot be changed just to suit the spiritual needs of "thumpers," who have built their religious house of cards on Scriptural inerrancy in all things.

[Diogenes]

Again,' walking in lockstep with a literalist reading' is slightly different than stating as a FACT that there is no God as he is described in the scriptures-as you directly imply in the folowing quote.

My argument is that the Jews' limited understanding of the world colored their view of God and how they portray Him and His creation. Their limited understanding is why their science is flat out wrong in several instances and why their history is also lacking in corroboration in several spots (e.g., there's no Egyptian records of a mass Jewish exodus or even slave Jewish labor being used for the pyramids). If the Scripture writers were all truly "divinely inspired," you'd think that God would have given them some inkling of genetics, cladistics, meteorology, geology, etc. But nope, those mistakes just sit there...

I do not believe in "Noah's Flood" or an actual garden of Eden or giants walking on Earth and mixing with humans. This in no way undermines my Christian belief system or demands that sit back and re-evaluate my faith. They're frigging fairy tales. Period.

Whatever 'your argument' is, you have yet to demonstrate that 'their science is flat out wrong' only that you reject the scriptures out of hand. The fact that an Egyptian Pharoah didn't record a humiliting episode in his reign in no way 'proves' that it didn't occur. And your notion that God should have given the writers of the scripture understanding of DNA and the nature of tectonics is just silly. And again, there is a difference in not believing in something and stating as FACT they 'They're frigging fairy tales. Period.'

And yet when it comes to Darwinism, not only do you change your tune drasticly, but anyone who even sugests considering flaws in the theory is suddenly 'non-scientific'.

That is a big fat lie and you know it. In fact, IN THIS VERY THREAD, I addressed the fact that Darwin's original hypotheses HAVE been revised, specifically in light of additional data from geology, genetics, embryology, developmental biology. If evolutionists were truly "fundies" as you lyingly continue to describe them, then we all would be sworn to adhere to every word of Darwin's original arguments as put forth in the 19th century. Instead, we use him as a launching point, a pioneer, from whom the original hypotheses on the mechanisms of natural selection were first put forth but then needed to be modified since obvious flaws (due to a lack of scientific knowledge on genetics, homeo boxes, etc.) existed. The modern understanding of evolution, in fact, is referred to as the "modern synthesis."

Spoken like a true believer. And yet, anytime someone questions the fundamental soundness of your prophet's little theory as they do with intelligent design, you ignore all the evidence, break out the ad hominems, and close your minds as tight as possible.

Really? My arguments against "intelligent design" have more to do with the utterly unscientific arguments they put forth and the lies ID proponents put forth (like your referring to evolutionists as "fundies").

You're a broken record, singing a bad song off-key.

You have been shown to be a liar within this very thread.

Irony *3

The only thing you have shown in this thread is a kneejerk propensity to resort to ad hominems and specious arguments. Your slanders of ID supporters have nothing to do with science, everything to do with orthodoxy. And you calling someone else a broken record?

Priceless.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Whatever 'your argument' is, you have yet to demonstrate that 'their science is flat out wrong' only that you reject the scriptures out of hand.

Earth is not the center of solar system.
Bats are not birds. Spiders are not insects.
Mustard seed is not the smallest seed.
There was no global flood during human civilization.

There are plenty of sites that more fully document Scriptural errors with regards to science and history. Do a google search and have fun. You might learn something.

The fact that an Egyptian Pharoah didn't record a humiliting episode in his reign in no way 'proves' that it didn't occur.

Now who's spinning like a frigging top?

Thete are NO records ANYWHERE outside of the OT that the pyrmaids were built by Jewish slaves, that an adopted prince named Moses went "native" and freed them after a series of miracles, or that a tribe the size of the Jews actually wandered around the desert for 40 years. This whole time, people just took it on faith.

Hell, I just read on one website that some archeologists and historians are questioning whether the kingdoms of David and Solomon were ever as big or powerful as the Bible claimed.

And your notion that God should have given the writers of the scripture understanding of DNA and the nature of tectonics is just silly.

Not if you and your ilk insist on misusing Scripture as a science text, it isn't.

And again, there is a difference in not believing in something and stating as FACT they 'They're frigging fairy tales. Period.'

If there's no evidence for them and they give accounts of things that defy natural law, then there's no rational reason to believe they are real.

The only thing you have shown in this thread is a kneejerk propensity to resort to ad hominems and specious arguments. Your slanders of ID supporters have nothing to do with science, everything to do with orthodoxy. And you calling someone else a broken record?

"Slanders?" Behe was caught lying on the stand in Dover, other ID proponents misrepresent and misquote scientists all the time (documented nicely on talkorigins), and during the Dover trial the creationist/ID link became obvious for all to see.

Orthodoxy has nothing to do with it. Science has had paradigm shifts and epic changes in view many times (ask Watson and Crick...). It has been and continues to be a self-correcting mechanism. In all fields - astronomy, physics, geology, genetics, evolution - new data is integrated into the system and if enough evidence dictates, new ideas take hold. That's the beauty of science.

Biblical literalists, on the other hand, have shredded truth in the name of orthodoxy. Biblical literalists have taken holy writ and twisted it into inappropriate uses and have sought to subjugate science and other disciplines to it. I do not believe for a second that God would have endowed us with reason to have it so stupidly wasted on idiocies like Scriptural fundamentalism.

[Dinsdale]

Cut the tards a break, MtLR.

How difficult it must be to realize that your parents lied to you.

I mean, seriously -- that's what's at issue -- not some debate about how the accepted laws of science mysteriously changed in 5000 years, or whether the Bible is a science/history book. It's much simpler, but much deeper that that.

In these times, we can pretty much PROVE that most religious texts(not limited to the Holy Bible, by any means) are complete crocks of shit. That leaves the followers with two options -- either admit to themselves that their parents were liars, or try and spin their views into truth once again.

In their heart of hearts, the fanatics KNOW what's going on...but put yourself in their shoes -- which of those two options is easier to take: Being laughed at by pretty much every intelligent person on the planet, or coming to grips with the fact that the people who bred, fed, and clothed you are liars?

THAT'S what it boils down to. Because I have a hard time believing that's not the underlying root of the discussion. At some point, the thinking that a devine being manipulated the laws of physics, and somehow falsified what we've established as facts in regard to science crosses the line between "faith" and "idiocy."

[Diogenes]

At some point, the thinking that a devine being manipulated the laws of physics...

Keep your John Waters fixation to yourself, dipshit.

Earth is not the center of solar system.
Bats are not birds. Spiders are not insects.
Mustard seed is not the smallest seed.

...and snakes don't talk.

Of course, the Bible doesn't say any of the above. The word owph, for example, can either be translated as fowl or as winged creature, depending on the context. But I don't have the time or inclination to point out all of your lies right now, besides, all of the lies I've exposed so far prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all you will do is come back with more lies.







Liar.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Liar.

So sayeth the one shown as a liar each and every time he refers to evolutionists as "fundies."

One point I had meant to make earlier - this "special dispensation" with regards to the laws of nature that you claim science should grant to Biblical events...if the Judeo-Christian Bible gets it, so do Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Egyptian mythology, Mormon mythology, Scientology, etc. Either the rules of nature are dispensed with for all mythologies or none at all - there's nothing that exempts Judeo-Christianity from the same critiques that those belief systems were subject to. Swap the word "Zeus," "Ra," or "Jupiter" for "God" in your arguments, and it all looks the same. Utterly ridiculous.

God doesn't need exemptions from the laws He set in place. He needs spokesmen that aren't flaming morons.

[poptart]

Mike, you're well aware that you're trying to establish fact where fact does not exist.

You're also well aware of evidence supporting a young earth, the flood, etc, etc ...

There is NO evidence that supports a young earth. None. Nada.

haha

There is NO evidence that YOU are happy to see.

We can play the link game all day long, Mike.
The old earth theory has holes everywhere.
Not only are there large holes from a scientific perspective, there are MAJOR common sense holes too.
None the less, I accept that 'evidence' exists to support your theory.
Any 'fact' assertion, however, is utterly absurd.
What you believe about the age of the earth is what you believe.


My main concern here is defending the Word of God.
This points below are a joke, Mike.
I'm not going to go into a long discussion over them, but I'll give quick replies.

Earth is not the center of solar system.
Bats are not birds. Spiders are not insects.
Mustard seed is not the smallest seed.

When the weather man tells us that the sun sets in the west at 7:47 pm is he telling us that the sun revolves around the earth ... ?
The Bible makes reference to the sun from MAN's perspective. Duh

In Leviticus bats are put at the end of a list of flying creatures not to be eaten.
God told them not to eat the following winged creatures.....and bat was included at the end.
So big deal.
The fact that bats are NOW classified apart from flying creatures doesn't prove diddly squat.
You want to try to stretch this out to attempt to make a point that this is evidence of 'bad science' in the Bible ... ?
Bwaaa hahaha


Jesus didn't say that the mustard seed was the smallest seed, Mike.
He said it was the least seed, just as he said in Luke 9:48, "for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great."
Least is not the same as smallest, and this is just another feeble whifffff of an attempt to show that the Bible 'teaches' bad science.
Nonsense, and embarassing, actually.

I don't know where you grabbed the 'spiders are not insects' thing from, but with 100% certainty it is also a load of crap.


Trying to make some point by dragging these bullcrap 'examples of Bible error' in here is total nonsense.

TOTAL.

There was no global flood during human civilization.

So you say.

I say differently.

[Diogenes]

Liar.

One point I had meant to make earlier - this "special dispensation" with regards to the laws of nature that you claim science should grant to Biblical events...

More lies.

[poptart]

Being Christian has absolutely nothing to do with believing in the literal truth of Genesis. Plenty of Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Yes, there are plenty of Christians such as yourself who do not believe the Bible, and as with us all, it is by God's grace that any of us believe in Christ.

It never ceases to crack me up though, when one who believes in the 'millions upon millions of years' theory is confronted with the reality that when they trace things ALL the way back to the beginning they actually believe that their original ancestor was .... a rock.

Pause and let it sink in.

Yes, all the creatures we see today, human and animal, originated from a rock.
It's all very factual though, you see.

Mike, when in the evolutionary process did man become man, in God's image ... ?
Was there some magic moment, or is 'in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' one of the many parts of the Scripture that you chose not to believe ... ?


There are people like Mike who believe in Jesus, but they clearly do not believe Jesus.
More troubling is that they don't even realize WHY they need to believe in Him.
They don't realize their identity and the depth of assurance that they have when they DO believe in him.

But at any rate ...........

Jesus said (Mark 10:6) 'But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’
Yes, Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created in the beginning of creation, not millions of years later.

This Jesus you believe in said that everything was created in 6 days.

This Jesus you believe in also spoke of the Old Testament as nothing other than absolute FACT.
He spoke of Abel as a real person.
Spoke of Noah and the flood.
Spoke of Abraham.
Spoke of Soddom and Gomorrah.
Spoke of Lot.
Spoke of Isaac and Jacob.
Spoke of manna.
Spoke of Jonah.
Spoke of Daniel and Isaiah.
He spoke of Moses writing the Torah.
Spoke of Isaiah writing both books of Isaiah.
Spoke of Jonah writing the book of Jonah.
Spoke of Daniel writing the book of Daniel.
He spoke of the Old Testament being spoken into being by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.
He quoted Scripture in overthrowing satan.
He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it.

Jesus the Christ could not possibly have honored Scripture more than He did.

You, Mike, are in opposition to Jesus Christ in His regard for the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture.


To cut to the bottom line, you are calling this Jesus who you believe in a liar.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Yes, there are plenty of Christians such as yourself who do not believe the Bible, and as with us all, it is by God's grace that any of us believe in Christ.

I do not believe that the Bible is 100% accurate with regards to science and history due to the technological, cultural, and scientific limitations of the people at the time. There are errors in physical sciences, the biological sciences, not to mention internal contradictions. I recognize these problems but also recognize that the Bible was not meant to be a science text.

That is a far cry from "not believing in the Bible."

I believe in the great moral truths in the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

It never ceases to crack me up though, when one who believes in the 'millions upon millions of years' theory is confronted with the reality that when they trace things ALL the way back to the beginning they actually believe that their original ancestor was .... a rock.

Pause and let it sink in.

Yes, all the creatures we see today, human and animal, originated from a rock.
It's all very factual though, you see.

It's one hypothesis among many.

Mike, when in the evolutionary process did man become man, in God's image ... ?
Was there some magic moment, or is 'in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' one of the many parts of the Scripture that you chose not to believe ... ?

I don't believe for a second that "in His image" means looking like Homo sapiens sapiens. I believe that "in His image" refers to the ability to reason, dream, love, create art, be a spirtual being, etc. God doesn't have arms, legs, retinas, sphincters, etc.

Jesus said (Mark 10:6) 'But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’
Yes, Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created in the beginning of creation, not millions of years later.

This Jesus you believe in said that everything was created in 6 days.

Since Jesus spoke in parables all the time (because his listeners were too unsophisticated to grasp immediate truths), why do you assume that he necessarily meant THIS one literally? What possible spiritual purpose would it serve to give a lesson in scientifically accurate cosmology and evolution?

Another thing is that as part of Him being both fully human and fully divine, He appears to have not been fully as omniscient as God the Father. I can't recall the exact quotes, but I seem to recall at least once where Jesus states that not even He knows when something was about to occur, that only the Father knew it.

So, maybe Jesus' not being historically accurate could be attributed to less than full omniscience prior to His death and Resurrection?

This Jesus you believe in also spoke of the Old Testament as nothing other than absolute FACT.
He spoke of Abel as a real person.
Spoke of Noah and the flood.
Spoke of Abraham.
Spoke of Soddom and Gomorrah.
Spoke of Lot.
Spoke of Isaac and Jacob.
Spoke of manna.
Spoke of Jonah.
Spoke of Daniel and Isaiah.
He spoke of Moses writing the Torah.
Spoke of Isaiah writing both books of Isaiah.

Well then he was wrong on that latter point, because we're pretty danged sure that one person did not write all the works attributed to "Isaiah."

He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it.

And yet He healed on the Sabbath when it suited his purpose, and one of His most powerful followers, Paul, proceeded to pretty much upend Scriptural rules with regards to circumcision and dietary rules. I'm not saying that Paul's lawyerly arguing for those changes don't meet my needs (I dig bacon), but a cynical fellow might argue that Paul's dropping of those rules despite Christ's specific admonition against things like that had FAR less to do with religious reasons than bolstering membership in a (at that time) dwindling Judaic sect by getting rid of rules that Gentiles found a big obstacle to wanting to join.

You, Mike, are in opposition to Jesus Christ in His regard for the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture.

Bullpucky.

You Biblical literalists are a hoot. You thump your "inerrant" KJV and argue against the teaching of evolution and anything else that twsists your knickers based on the childish proposition that the Bible as written is 100% accurate and means precisely what it says. Then when someone points out obvious internal contradictions or scientific or historical errors, you guys ALL go to the "well, the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic word for [fill in the blank] could mean [what is printed] or [what the fundie now wants the word to mean], so the Bible is not in error" card or the "from their perspective" card.

Got news for you, bub - you cannot have it both ways. YOU GUYS are the ones who placed the big ole, "100% accurate as written" roadblock up, so you're not allowed to backpedal from it. You painted yourself into a corner and trying to basically argue that the Bible is literally true...except when it isn't (usually when it's inconvenient for you). You guys are funny as crap in how transparent you are. Like Dins said - because you bought the literal thing hook, line and sinker, you can't face the fact that maybe Santa Clause ain't the one bringing the presents.

The rest of us nutty, 21st century Christians can accept the scientific, technological limitations of the authors and have been pointing out translation and perspective issues from day one.

[poptart]

I'm not a 'Bible literalist,' as you are fond of portraying me.
I am a Bible believer.
The literalist tag is YOUR way of trying to put Bible believers into a box from which you can attempt to put them on a leash.
That dog won't hunt.

Btw, I didn't say that you don't believe IN the Bible.
I said you don't believe the Bible, and you freely admit such.

I don't believe for a second that "in His image" means looking like Homo sapiens sapiens. I believe that "in His image" refers to the ability to reason, dream, love, create art, be a spirtual being, etc. God doesn't have arms, legs, retinas, sphincters, etc.

'In his image' certainly means a spiritual image.
God is spirit.
He created man as a spiritual being.
So the question is, at what point in the evolutionary process did God designate man as a spiritual being .... in His image....?
And in not believing the Bible's clear time table on it, how is it that you arrive at your answer ?
Where do you find wisdom to give your answer ... ?


Was it a parable Jesus was telling in Mark 10:6, Mike .... ?

Jesus regarded the Old Testament as fact.
The evidence of that is overwhelming.
Nobody in their right mind would read all of His words and conclude something else.

Your take on Isaiah did nothing to turn things away from the fact that you think He was a liar.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I'm not a 'Bible literalist,' as you are fond of portraying me.
I am a Bible believer.
The literalist tag is YOUR way of trying to put Bible believers into a box from which you can attempt to put them on a leash.
That dog won't hunt.

The "dog won't hunt" line actually works better in reference to equating "Bible believer" with someone who takes every part of the Bible as accurate in every sense.

Btw, I didn't say that you don't believe IN the Bible.
I said you don't believe the Bible, and you freely admit such.

Nope. What I admit to is not believing that the Bible was ever intended to be a science text or history text, hence the errors with regards in those areas. I have stated plainly and repeatedly that I "believe the Bible" with regards to areas in which is rightly used - faith and morals.

'In his image' certainly means a spiritual image.
God is spirit.
He created man as a spiritual being.
So the question is, at what point in the evolutionary process did God designate man as a spiritual being .... in His image....?

That question is one that science cannot answer, as it deals with the supernatural. Souls are not part of physiology, neurology, etc., so they don't factor into evolutionary discussions.

I know that some folks have had beer-fueled proposals along the lines of God working through evolution to create human-like ancestors and that when they were "cooked" to his specifications that He "imbued" them with souls.

But like I said, the whole topic of souls is unscientific.

As is the argument that women were made out of a piece of rib.

Was it a parable Jesus was telling in Mark 10:6, Mike .... ?

That humans have two sexes? Oooooooooooooooooh, that one is deep. And it says nothing that disputes a rational reading of natural history - unless you insist that it implies that HE reads Genesis literally.

Jesus regarded the Old Testament as fact.
The evidence of that is overwhelming.
Nobody in their right mind would read all of His words and conclude something else.

If by He "regarded the Old Testament as fact" you mean that Jesus honestly took every jot and tittle of the OT literally and believed it 100% scientifically and historically accurate, then you're wrong, and not only do folks "in their right mind conclude something else," but since the majority of mainline Christian denominations do not teach Biblical literalism as fact and don't believe that Jesus did either, the majority sides with me.

Since the OT has definite errors and contradictions in it, you once again paint yourself in a corner by demanding literalism (which, despite your denials, you ARE doing). Trying to (unsuccessfully) up the ante by claiming that Jesus agrees with you doesn't help your case. All it can possibly do, since finding the OT errors is so simple, is make Jesus look less-than-omniscient. Not a good idea for someone trying to win "holy points."

[RadioFan]

Jesus regarded the Old Testament as fact.

No, he didn't. His teachings went directly against the whole "eye for an eye" way of doing things throughout the OT.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Toss in some researched accusations from some Jews most definitely NOT for Jesus:

"Naturally, Jesus did sometimes pretend to respect the Law, but whenever he thought he could get away with it, he turned right around and broke that same Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law—thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his evil agenda. The following sins of Jesus are recorded in the "New Testament":

Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.]

He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26).

He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26).

4) He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to G-d's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.]

Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (This is recorded in many places throughout the New Testament, but look especially at Matthew 23:13-39 and John 8:44-45)."

Yow.

Toss in Paul's decision to drop dietary laws and circumcision to let Gentiles in more quickly, and so much for the argument that Christians/Jesus buy the OT as accurate.

Oh, and no less an authority than St. Augustine specifically warned Christians against reading the OT literally due to the obvious errors in it.

Hey, this is kinda fun....

[Diogenes]

Oh, and no less an authority than St. Augustine specifically warned Christians against reading the OT literally due to the obvious errors in it.

St. Augustine: He supported inerrancy in a letter to St. Jerome. He wrote:
"On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

[Mike the Lab Rat]

St. Augustine: He supported inerrancy in a letter to St. Jerome. He wrote:
"On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."

Inerrancy from a moral and ethical stand, not a scientific one:

St. Augustine:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

Oh, and thanks for giving this quote:
"And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.

That right there concedes the possibility BY A CHURCH FATHER that the text might be faulty or that the translator may have screwed up. To this point, there have been folks who would have argued that those concessions would be unthinkable to a person "in their right mind."

[Diogenes]

Oh, and thanks for giving this quote:
"And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.

That right there concedes the possibility BY A CHURCH FATHER that the text might be faulty or that the translator may have screwed up. To this point, there have been folks who would have argued that those concessions would be unthinkable to a person "in their right mind."

Who exactly? The site linked gives a pretty concise definition of inerrancy...

Some claim that, in its original autograph version, the Bible is inerrant -- without error. This belief developed naturally from their conviction that God inspired the authors of the Bible. If God was influencing the writers, then he would not have led them into error. This appears to be the consensus of the popes, and most of the Catholic scholars and other church leaders until the mid 20th century.

And this from a site that is far from 'fundamentalist' 'literalist' or whatever other label you want to put on those who believe the Bible is the Word of God.