RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,14:59   

FL,

Here's something that occurred 13 billion years before your literalistic interpretation of creation.  Stuff has been happening for quite a long time now.  Considerably more than 6,000 years, give or take.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,15:07   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,11:13)
     
Quote
All available evidence is that Genesis doesn't represent a literal, historical account

Specifics, Deadman?  Care to examine the textual and contextual evidences, yes?

Two simple questions:
Do you believe that it is possible to determine the course of past events using reason and evidience ?

Do you believe that the veracity (or otherwise) of the biblical account may be determined by these means ?

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,15:09   

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 28 2009,12:39)
Don't close the thread.

Let all see and read Floyd's lies and distortions for themselves.

"Closed" doesn't mean "deleted", Frank.  The thread will be here for our amusement until long after the Rapture.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,15:56   

Setting aside Flody's other bizarre ramblings, this one caught my attention especially:

     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:36)
     
Quote
Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.

On the contrary, that was Jesus's own position.  No escape on that one folks.  
Jesus said the following:
             
Quote
"For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).

Where did Moses write about Jesus, pray tell?  Right here when he wrote this Genesis Messianic prophecy:
             
Quote
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."   (3:15)  

Remember, Jesus wasn't a skeptic, and Jesus wasn't an evolutionist.  HE, like all the observant Jews of his day fully accepted Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and accepted it as actual historical narrative, just like the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament did.


That little bit from Flody made me wonder what the hell he could be thinking -- even from a Christian perspective, it's bizarre. That passage is clearly about God talking to THE FUCKIN' SERPENT that caused evil in the garden. But Flody says it's "really" about JESUS?

This beggars my ability to even mock it, it's quite literally insane shit that makes me wonder what kind of a satanic, snake-worshipping cult Flody belongs to.

Here's the fuller version of Genesis 3:13-15, God Talking TO THE SERPENT  


     
Quote
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


I'm not even going to write any more about this -- this entire episode speaks for itself and it's screaming out that Flody is truly fucked-up in the melon.

To imagine that "Moses" is secretly referring to Jesus in this Genesis passage about a serpent that caused Adam and Eve to be cast out of Eden...I have no words to mock it, it's just dripping, sodden with insane.

P.S. Flody: I know exactly what you're going to TRY to say...that "Jesus" is implicitly prefigured in the statement about the seed of Eve "bruising the head" of the serpent ... but it doesn't make sense from a Hebrew or Christian perspective, although Fundynuts try to pretend it does. http://messiahtruth.org/gen315.html (Jewish site)

More importantly, it's irrelevant to your claims about Christianity and evolution being incompatible.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,16:47   

Bruised in head and heel,
FL,
may you live to heal.
Else, I wish you well in Hell.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,16:49   

OMToE!!!

Now, Yodel Elf is actually misquoting the buybull? Damn, there's a pitchfork and BBQ put aside for him all right!

YE: your ass is gonna burn!



--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,17:21   

If we should run out of topics(!), it might be interesting to debate those innocent looking words "Son of God". Do they mean what FL will claim they do, or do they mean what we may glean from unbiased study of the Bible and Jewish traditions?

But I really hope this thread will be terminated soon; it seems FL have enough problems already.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,19:14   

Unfortunately, this is totally typical.  It's really depressing that the Texas school board is made up of idiots like Floyd.

I really have no hope for the teaching ID as science.  Floyd will do the following:

1) Claim that science must be redefined, then refuse to accept that his redefinition requires astrology, witchcraft, asgardian magik, and other such to be taught.

2) Blather on for 253 pages (approximately) about the problems of evolution with not a single statement supporting his position.

2a) Alternately he might (and probably will) bring up Behe, Dembski, and if we're really lucky Glen Rose man tracks.

2b) change his position (which was never defined anyway) as soon as someone posts a scathing reply with properly verified sources (unless the reply is on Sunday).

3) Epically fail to know anything about science, education, or government for that matter.

4) Continue to look like an IDiot.

5) Probably use the final argument "Neener neener"1

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,20:13   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
 
Quote
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)

Here's your problem, FL.  Star Wars 1-6, and the Jedi account in Star Wars 3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific movies are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Lucas sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,20:36   

Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Don't you understand?  You either have to show that Genesis is literal truth, or you have to show that Christian doctrine requires Christians to treat Genesis as if it is literally true.

You cannot do either.  You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; you cannot show that the authors of Genesis regarded it as historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; and you cannot show that Genesis is narrative truth in any event.

Your list of "conflicts" is meaningless.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,20:59   

what a maroon!

Part I:  "eviloooootion and christianity are incompatible because I say the bible says so"

Part II:  "nothing in biology makes sense without the light of what i say the bible says because i say the bible says so"

wow, anyone care to project the ID is science angle?

Part III:??

"ID is science because I say the bible says so"

not much else to go with there flodd

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,21:01   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:36)
Quote
Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.

On the contrary, that was Jesus's own position.  No escape on that one folks.  
Jesus said the following:
     
Quote
"For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).

Where did Moses write about Jesus, pray tell?  Right here when he wrote this Genesis Messianic prophecy:
     
Quote
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."   (3:15)  

Remember, Jesus wasn't a skeptic, and Jesus wasn't an evolutionist.  HE, like all the observant Jews of his day fully accepted Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and accepted it as actual historical narrative, just like the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament did.

In fact, both Jesus and his opponents (the Pharisees) fully accepted that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis.   Check out Matt. 19:
     
Quote
2 The Pharisees came and asked (Jesus), “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:2)

7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

8 and the two shall become one flesh’; ( Genesis 2:24) so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus's response directly blocked the Pharisee attack, and there was nowhere to go for the Pharisees, they could not come up with a prior Mosaic quotation than the Genesis creation itself.  

Nor did the Pharisees come up with "Hey Jesus!  That's metaphor!  That's allegory!  That's non-historical!  That's not reality!  St. Darwin sez so!"  

No, they (like Jesus) fully accepted that Moses wrote Genesis and Moses said it as actual history.

(And please notice:  Jesus directly quoted the Genesis text itself as actual literal history.)

Finally, also note that Moses wrote again of Jesus in the fifth of the Five Books (the Five Books are called the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis).  Here's two more Messianic prophecies:
     
Quote
15  "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

18  'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

---Deut. 18

**********

So, bottom line is.....Moses wrote Genesis, according to Jesus (and the writers of the Old and New Testaments, and the Pharisees, and the Israelites, etc.)

Of course, if you don't believe Jesus Christ, well...........

False, Floyd.  Point me to the actual words of Jesus that state that Moses wrote Genesis.

You can't do it.

Address the various dozens of questions put to you in this thread, please.

I continue to pray for you - you are desperately in need of God's grace.

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,21:04   

Here is your entire problem in a nutshell, Floyd.

In order to show that "incompatibilities" exist between Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory, you either have to show that Genesis is literal truth, or you have to show that Christian doctrine requires Christians to treat Genesis as if it is literally true.

You cannot do either.  You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; you cannot show that the authors of Genesis regarded it as historical narrative solely from the Bible itself; and you cannot show that Genesis is narrative truth in any event.

The Nicene Creed, the single most common and fundamental statement of Christian doctrine is completely compatible with evolutionary theory.

Nothing in evolutionary theory prohibits God's responsibility as the ultimate cause of all creation.

Your list of "incompatibilities" is meaningless.

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,21:08   

Oh, and by the way, Floyd - you do realize that Deuteronomy cannot be referring to Christ?

15  "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

18  'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

What part of that do you have trouble understanding?  The entire point is that Jesus was not like us, nor was he like the author's countrymen.

Your ignorance of the Bible is becoming clearer and clearer with every post you make.

It's very simple, Floyd.  I accept both Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory on rational grounds.  There are no "incompatibilities" between them.

You live in fear of hellfire, apparently.  You should.

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,21:16   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
 
Quote
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

Here is some of the evidence:

1. Radioisotope dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

2. Salinity dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

3. Varve dating shows that the Earth has existed for more than 13,200 years.

4. Dendrochronology shows that the Earth has existed for more than 26,000 years.

5. Light from stars 10 billion light years away is just now reaching Earth, indicating that those stars existed 10 billion years ago, which is longer than 6000 years ago.

6. Microwaves from events 14.1 billion years ago are just now reaching the Earth (and being detected through the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).

7. Miles of sedimentary rock with no human fossils shows that the world existed for many millions of years -- not for 5 days -- before humans came into existence.

All of this evidence -- and much more besides -- indicates that the creation account of Genesis 1 is not literally true.  It also indicates that the creation account of Genesis 2 is not literally true.

There is also internal, Biblical evidence that these creation accounts are not true: In Genesis 1 the Earth created animals before God created man, and in Genesis 2 God created animals after God created man.

[I know that FL has tied himself up into intellectual knots denying this straightforward internal contradiction.  This merely proves that FL is even more flexible and even less honest than other intellectual knot-tiers like Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney.  It also proves that FL considers himself to be the product of incest between one of the sons of Adam and one of the daughters of Adam.]

This is some of the evidence that the creation stories in Genesis are nonhistorical.  This does not bother most Christians (69% of Americans, as I've previously pointed out) because they don't interpret the Bible literally.

So, FL, there's the evidence.  I notice that you haven't produced even an iota of evidence that Genesis is historical.  You've made that claim dozens of times -- you've even put it in the form of a multiple-choice quiz -- but all you've done is made the statement.

There is a lot of evidence that the authors of the Old Testament (including the authors of Genesis) were writing a propaganda document that was not intended to be literally true.

For example:
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.
By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

I quote from the review by Phyllis Trible:

"A small nation with big plans could use a grand story. In constructing it, authors and editors drew on many diverse and conflicting traditions, which they embellished and elaborated. The intent was ideological and theological -- not to record history (in the modern sense) but to appropriate the past for the present. The epic that emerged was edited and added to in subsequent centuries to become the powerful saga we know as the Hebrew Bible. Unequaled in the ancient world, it articulated a national and social compact for an entire people under God. Finkelstein and Silberman leave no doubt of their reverence for it. In their view, however, it is ''not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination.'' "

I've presented evidence that Genesis is ahistorical.  While you have stated the opposite, you have never presented evidence.  Where, Floyd, is your evidence?

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,21:33   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 28 2009,15:09)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 28 2009,12:39)
Don't close the thread.

Let all see and read Floyd's lies and distortions for themselves.
"Closed" doesn't mean "deleted", Frank.  The thread will be here for our amusement until long after the Rapture.

I know that.  But to give in to "ending this thread" would make Floyd a "winner" in his and other fundies' eyes.

Leave it open and ignore it for the most part but don't give Floyd his "victory".

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,21:47   

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 28 2009,21:16)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
   
Quote
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

Here is some of the evidence:

1. Radioisotope dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

2. Salinity dating shows that the Earth has existed for about 4 billion years rather than 6000 years.

3. Varve dating shows that the Earth has existed for more than 13,200 years.

4. Dendrochronology shows that the Earth has existed for more than 26,000 years.

5. Light from stars 10 billion light years away is just now reaching Earth, indicating that those stars existed 10 billion years ago, which is longer than 6000 years ago.

6. Microwaves from events 14.1 billion years ago are just now reaching the Earth (and being detected through the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).

7. Miles of sedimentary rock with no human fossils shows that the world existed for many millions of years -- not for 5 days -- before humans came into existence.

All of this evidence -- and much more besides -- indicates that the creation account of Genesis 1 is not literally true.  It also indicates that the creation account of Genesis 2 is not literally true.

There is also internal, Biblical evidence that these creation accounts are not true: In Genesis 1 the Earth created animals before God created man, and in Genesis 2 God created animals after God created man.

[I know that FL has tied himself up into intellectual knots denying this straightforward internal contradiction.  This merely proves that FL is even more flexible and even less honest than other intellectual knot-tiers like Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney.  It also proves that FL considers himself to be the product of incest between one of the sons of Adam and one of the daughters of Adam.]

This is some of the evidence that the creation stories in Genesis are nonhistorical.  This does not bother most Christians (69% of Americans, as I've previously pointed out) because they don't interpret the Bible literally.

So, FL, there's the evidence.  I notice that you haven't produced even an iota of evidence that Genesis is historical.  You've made that claim dozens of times -- you've even put it in the form of a multiple-choice quiz -- but all you've done is made the statement.

There is a lot of evidence that the authors of the Old Testament (including the authors of Genesis) were writing a propaganda document that was not intended to be literally true.

For example:
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.
By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

I quote from the review by Phyllis Trible:

"A small nation with big plans could use a grand story. In constructing it, authors and editors drew on many diverse and conflicting traditions, which they embellished and elaborated. The intent was ideological and theological -- not to record history (in the modern sense) but to appropriate the past for the present. The epic that emerged was edited and added to in subsequent centuries to become the powerful saga we know as the Hebrew Bible. Unequaled in the ancient world, it articulated a national and social compact for an entire people under God. Finkelstein and Silberman leave no doubt of their reverence for it. In their view, however, it is ''not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination.'' "

I've presented evidence that Genesis is ahistorical.  While you have stated the opposite, you have never presented evidence.  Where, Floyd, is your evidence?

I think you're missing part of Floyd's point.

What he is claiming is that the author of Genesis, et. al. intended it to be historical narrative.  This claim is orthogonal to any claim about whether the events it refers to are in fact historical.

What is interesting about this assertion by Floyd - an unprovable assertion, by the way - is that it is absolutely irrelevant to any of Floyd's arguments.  

The only assertion that matter is whether or not Christians are obliged to treat Genesis as historical narrative.

If they are obliged to do so in order to be considered Christians, then there exists fundamental incompatibilities with astronomy, cosmology, physics, geology, biology, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology, and most other branches of science as well as evolutionary biology.

But the point is, they're not.  No Christian is obliged to regard Genesis 1-11 solely as historical narrative (Floyd seems to have forgotten that Genesis might be both).

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.

I warned you, Floyd; you can't best me on Biblical exegesis nor on evolutionary theory nor on logic.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,21:52   

but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,22:06   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 28 2009,21:52)
but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?

An interesting question.  But once more irrelevant to Floyd's "argument".   :p

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,22:07   

Repeated for Floyd, since this is what the entire thread has reduced itself to.

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2009,22:41   

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.

With emphasis on the "tard."

The same issue of irrelevance really holds for all of Flody's "Big Five" as well, since he admitted that the Pope (a place-holder name for "any Christian," really) can simply ignore Floyd's "Big Five" and still remain a Christian who accepts evolution and ignores Floyd's Big Five.

Floyd basicaly shot himself in the foot on that one, too, but still keeps forwarding his "BF" as if they were somehow meaningful of something. It really is like watching some demented automaton thing bumping itself against a wall endlessly.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,03:36   

Quote
I warned you, Floyd; you can't best me on Biblical exegesis nor on evolutionary theory nor on logic.

Even I can't... Buuuuhuuuu...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,06:23   

Quack, I like your new avatar. A relation of yours?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,06:37   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 29 2009,06:23)
Quack, I like your new avatar. A relation of yours?

Thank you. A little better than the slightly inebriated fellow waving a book "Norske Sengehester" (Norwegian bed-horses). We may laugh at it today, but in 1965 it was a harbinger of what IMHO has gone quite a bit to far.

WRT that fellow I like him too, but don't quite know if or where he might fit in. But I'll try to check it out, I want to know too!

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,08:08   

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

Floyd's problem is worse than that.  Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark 10:6 Jesus said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally.  On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at "the beginning", but more than a hundred and twenty hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female.  Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,08:44   

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 29 2009,08:08)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

Floyd's problem is worse than that.  Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark 10:6 Jesus said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally.  On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at "the beginning", but more than a hundred and twenty hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female.  Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum

A very nice point. As someone once remarked, Christ appears to have been rather more nuanced than his followers.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,08:56   

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 29 2009,09:08)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:07)
The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

Floyd's problem is worse than that.  Jesus did not reference a literal version of Genesis, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark 10:6 Jesus said: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Which shows that Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally.  On a strict literal interpretation this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at "the beginning", but more than a hundred and twenty hours after the beginning. Secondly with Adam being made before Eve, there was a time when there was male and not female.  Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum

DAYUM

how is flodd gonna lie about that, i wundah?

betcha the little bastid just ignores it

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,09:02   

Quote
I'm not even going to write any more about this

It's just as well.  It seems very clear that you've done no studies on Messianic prophecies in the Bible.
We don't need to argue about it, Deadman, and your apparent stress is unwarranted.  Just leave it as part of the record.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,09:05   

Quote
You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself

Tell me your response to the Gen 5 genealogy again, CM?

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,09:09   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:05)
Quote
You cannot show that Genesis is historical narrative solely from the Bible itself

Tell me your response to the Gen 5 genealogy again, CM?

Repeated for Floyd, since this is what the entire thread has reduced itself to.

So whether or not Genesis actually represents genuine history, as opposed to something that its author or authors thought to be genuine history is a moot point.

The only point that matters is whether Christians must regard it as genuine history in order to be considered Christians.

As a simple demonstration that it is not so, I offered the Nicene Creed.  Nothing in that requires a Christian to treat Genesis as genuine history.

Floyd is right royally hoist on his own petard of ignorance.

  
  2975 replies since Sep. 12 2009,22:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (100) < ... 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]