question about Christianity

#153
#153
joevol320 said:
the Bible specifically states day and night were the 1st day.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't clear.
 
#154
#154
Joevol is right in the respect that just because there is a ton of evidence to support something - it doesn't make it fact. However, when you ignore all the evidence, your argument holds no weight.
 
#155
#155
People will say the Bible is evidence - but wouldn't that be the same as saying L. Ron Hubbard's books/materials are evidence of humans as immortal beings who have forgotten themselves?
 
#156
#156
therealUT said:
It is not at all far from the belief of Baptist Doctrine; in fact, it is completely in accord with Baptist Doctrine. Note, I stated the Baptism can be informal, as the formal ceremony is merely a representation of the inner conversion; however, the inner conversion cannot take place without a belief in Jesus, which cannot take place without a belief in the authority of scripture, which cannot take place without the grace from the Holy Spirit, which
(according to the NT) is not granted to hose who do not choose to accept (informal baptism).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


There is a hugh difference in the Baptist and Catholic doctrines

Here are links to the Baptist Articles of Faith and the Catholic Dogma.

Metropolitan Baptist Church - Baptist Articles of Faith - Washington, DC & Largo, MD

Dogmas Of The Catholic Faith
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#157
#157
#158
#158
therealUT said:
Read Articles 6, 7, and 8 and tell me how they contradict what I posited.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I will give you those 3 .

With that said there is a HUGH difference In the 2 doctrines.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#159
#159
Gramps said:
I will give you those 3 .

With that said there is a HUGH difference In the 2 doctrines.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There is not a difference between either doctrine and the logic problem I proposed, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#160
#160
Gramps said:
Evolution nor creation can be proven.

Not all scientist agree with you.

PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS

"The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)

"Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)

"The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.)

"We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)

"The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)

"I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.)

"I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.)

"At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.)

"So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)

"In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

In that list there are only 3 credible quotes. Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they are any sort of expert in biology. Engineers and speech therapists don't count. I wouldn't expect any of them to know what a laryngeal nerve is or even remotely be able to tell me why it goes from the brain down around the heart and back up to the head of a giraffe (for no reason), the same as it does in a fish (for a reason).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#161
#161
CSVol said:
It is most certainly a theory. I'm an evolutionist (kinda hard not to be with a minor in Anthropology) but there are holes within Darwin's Theory, as well as competing evolutionary theories, that allow for discussion of it's complete factuality. As for Intelligent Design, I think you may mean Creationism. ID and evolution do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

There are certainly holes, but they're not as big as creationists make them out to be. "Missing link" and "God in the gaps" are defensive stances.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#162
#162
Gramps said:
Evolution nor creation can be proven.

Not all scientist agree with you.

PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS

"The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)
Click to expand...

This is not an argument against natural selection nor is it an argument for the Genesis Creation Stories.

Gramps said:
"Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)
Click to expand...

See above.

Gramps said:
"The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.)
Click to expand...

This man is either stating that the flood and the geological record are not the same or he needs a lesson in syntax.

Gramps said:
"We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)
Click to expand...

First quote in which one of these PhDs appears to endorse one of the Genesis Creation Stories.

Gramps said:
"The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)
Click to expand...

Definitely not an argument for anything.

Gramps said:
"I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.)
Click to expand...

He endorses the first Genesis Creation Story; yet, as an Electrical Engineer, he is not much of an authority on the subject.

Gramps said:
"I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.)
Click to expand...

Another argument for nothing.

Gramps said:
"At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.)
Click to expand...

Which literal creation story? Monty better choose one over the other, else he does commit intellectual suicide.

Gramps said:
"So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)
Click to expand...

One could infer that this is an endorsement of the Genesis Stories; one could just as easily infer that it just means that God, in some manner, created the universe.

Gramps said:
"In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)
Click to expand...

Augustine and Aquinas both discredit the Creation Stories in their writings and both embrace the thought that all life originated as minuscule, amorphous lifeforms.
Therefore, just because one is a theologian, does not mean that one endorses the Genesis Stories.
 
#163
#163
The first creation story outlines the order of creation while the second goes into detail on the creation of man. The arguments I've see that claim there is a contradiction primarily revolve around chronological order. For example the claim is that in Genisis 1 male and female were created at the same time while in Genisis 2 man was created first. Genisis 1 states that man and woman were created on the 6th day, it doesn't say simultaneously. Another is the order of man and animals, Genesis 1 - animals first then man while the order is reversed in Genisis 2. Chapter 2 doesnt really address the chronology. God formed the animals and brought them before Adam to be named. We know the chronology from chapter 1.
 
#164
#164
Begbie said:
The first creation story outlines the order of creation while the second goes into detail on the creation of man. The arguments I've see that claim there is a contradiction primarily revolve around chronological order. For example the claim is that in Genisis 1 male and female were created at the same time while in Genisis 2 man was created first. Genisis 1 states that man and woman were created on the 6th day, it doesn't say simultaneously. Another is the order of man and animals, Genesis 1 - animals first then man while the order is reversed in Genisis 2. Chapter 2 doesnt really address the chronology. God formed the animals and brought them before Adam to be named. We know the chronology from chapter 1.
Click to expand...

The order of creation is fundamentally different in Chapter 2. Ignore it all you want. Or, interpret it in a way that makes sense to you, but understand that by taking this course you are no longer acting on the principle of literalism.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#165
#165
Can you give a specific example of a fundamental difference? I am by no means an expert, just a former lapse Catholic, but it seems to me that one has to read into the text to reach that conclusion.
 
#166
#166
Begbie said:
Can you give a specific example of a fundamental difference? I am by no means an expert, just a former lapse Catholic, but it seems to me that one has to read into the text to reach that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I posted both chapters earlier. Read along with each chapter and make a note of the order of creation in each. They are different, inconsistent, and contradictory. This conclusion takes no reading into; quite the opposite, this is the outcome of taking the text literally. The only way to make them jive is to move, however much, toward an allegorical interpretation. Doing so removes any stand on principle that a literalist can take and the argument then shifts to allegorical range and scope.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#167
#167
therealUT said:
I posted both chapters earlier. Read along with each chapter and make a note of the order of creation in each. They are different, inconsistent, and contradictory. This conclusion takes no reading into; quite the opposite, this is the outcome of taking the text literally. The only way to make them jive is to move, however much, toward an allegorical interpretation. Doing so removes any stand on principle that a literalist can take and the argument then shifts to allegorical range and scope.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

How do you know all this?

Since the Bible has been subjected to many translations by men nobody claims speak with God, I can't believe that people strictly adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
 
#168
#168
I can see your point, though as I read it chapter 2 details the creation of man and the Garden of Eden and doesn't necessary affect the order in chapter 1. I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right. In fact the concept that every word in the Bible is the literal truth is something with which I struggle. It could be allegorical, Jesus used stories all the time in his teachings. I think there are two ways a believer can look at it - 1. God directed man's hand in the writing (everything literal, word for word) or 2. God inspired man to write and since man is fallible not everything is literal. I'd say I'm probably stuck somewhere in the middle of those.
 
#169
#169
nbakerld said:
How do you know all this?

Since the Bible has been subjected to many translations by men nobody claims speak with God, I can't believe that people strictly adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Click to expand...

There are persons and Christian sects that do procaim that they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, regardless of your argument (which is quite solid, IMO).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#170
#170
therealUT said:
There are persons and Christian sects that do procaim that they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, regardless of your argument (which is quite solid, IMO).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Someone just said God inspired the men to write the Bible - why would an omniscient being inspire different versions?
 
#171
#171
Begbie said:
I can see your point, though as I read it chapter 2 details the creation of man and the Garden of Eden and doesn't necessary affect the order in chapter 1. I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right. In fact the concept that every word in the Bible is the literal truth is something with which I struggle. It could be allegorical, Jesus used stories all the time in his teachings. I think there are two ways a believer can look at it - 1. God directed man's hand in the writing (everything literal, word for word) or 2. God inspired man to write and since man is fallible not everything is literal. I'd say I'm probably stuck somewhere in the middle of those.
Click to expand...

You do see that there exists a different order though, right? Different sequence regarding vegetation, man, and animals. A literalist would have to reconcile these, somehow; this reconciliation cannot occur unless one abondons strict literalism. That said, is there a principle difference between taking parts of the Bible as somewhat allegorical and wholly allegorical.

The parables of Jesus do not factor in, as they are prefaced with statements within the texts saying 'here comes a parable'. The Creation story is not prefaced with such a disclaimer, though. One must mke the call that it is either contradictory or allegorical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#172
#172
KiffinKiller said:
Someone just said God inspired the men to write the Bible - why would an omniscient being inspire different versions?
Click to expand...

Certainly another problem. There are some who try to credit errors/inconsistency to human faults; yet, does that affect the proposed divine authority of the text?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#173
#173
Billy Costigan said:
One of my acquaintances who thinks we came from monkeys and doesn't believe in God told me that Christians believe in talking snakes. It sounds silly but I think he was being dead serious. Does anyone know if this is true? If you're a Christian do you believe in talking snakes?
Click to expand...

Most who take a literal position on that story believe that Satan spoke through the snake.
 
#174
#174
therealUT said:
Of course it is allegorical, as the two creation stories in Genesis are inconsistent and contradictory.
Click to expand...

Nope. They aren't and there are MANY free resources on the net from serious scholars that demonstrate why.

You have a habit of stating the opinions you've accepted as if they were established fact.

Hebrew scholars I believe are pretty much in agreement that the first 6 chapters of the Bible were not written in the form of poetry or allegory. You can reject the truthfulness... but an arbitrary decision to do that is the only real reason to declare it anything but a historical account (by the way it was written).
 
#175
#175
sjt18 said:
Nope. They aren't and there are MANY free resources on the net from serious scholars that demonstrate why.

You have a habit of stating the opinions you've accepted as if they were established fact.

Hebrew scholars I believe are pretty much in agreement that the first 6 chapters of the Bible were not written in the form of poetry or allegory. You can reject the truthfulness... but an arbitrary decision to do that is the only real reason to declare it anything but a historical account (by the way it was written).
Click to expand...

Of course they are; and those free resources of interpretations are then individuals who are moving away from literalism. Nice try. Read Gen. 1 and Gen. 2, I posted them above.

It is an established fact that the order in which specific things were created is different in Gen 1. and Gen 2. This is why I have stated it as a fact.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top