Creation vs. Evolution

[Danoff]

I'm still lost as to what you're trying to say.

Ok. I'll summarize.

Statements like this (which are supposed to be the word of God)

And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.

Show that the bible cannot be taken literally in all aspects. Now, since it is not necessary to take the bible literally to be a Christian. Why is it so necessary that the world be 6000 literal years old, or that evolution was not God's way of making man?

 

[Swift]

Ok. I'll summarize.

Statements like this (which are supposed to be the word of God)



Show that the bible cannot be taken literally in all aspects. Now, since it is not necessary to take the bible literally to be a Christian. Why is it so necessary that the world be 6000 literal years old, or that evolution was not God's way of making man?

Because no form of evolution is even mentioned in the bible.

Gleanings: Things that have been collected bit by bit: the gleanings of patient scholars.

Uh, so God said don't take the stuff left over on the ground after you get the bulk of the harvest. So what?

 

[Grand Prix]

Because no form of evolution is even mentioned in the bible.

Gleanings: Things that have been collected bit by bit: the gleanings of patient scholars.

Uh, so God said don't take the stuff left over on the ground after you get the bulk of the harvest. So what?

Farmers try to sell every bit of grain they can for a profit...

 

[Swift]

Farmers try to sell every bit of grain they can for a profit...

And they still get huge government subsidies. Amazing huh?

 

[Grand Prix]

And they still get huge government subsidies. Amazing huh?

Even Monsanto Corporation farmers?

 

[Danoff]

Because no form of evolution is even mentioned in the bible.

...and if it's not mentioned in the bible, we all know it can't be true. The bible doesn't mention computers or submarines either.

Uh, so God said don't take the stuff left over on the ground after you get the bulk of the harvest. So what?

Does that sound like God to you? It doesn't sound very omniscient to me.

 

[Swift]

...and if it's not mentioned in the bible, we all know it can't be true. The bible doesn't mention computers or submarines either.

You know what I like about you Danoff. When it comes to the bible, you always look before you leap.

And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Does that sound like God to you? It doesn't sound very omniscient to me.

Chances are, that is related to the harvest being left on the ground too long and to spoil. These are direct commands to the hebrew people in the ways of conduct. Some of the things have to do soley with health benefits. Like eating kosher.

 

[Danoff]

the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

So I don't get this at all. One language? We have lots of languages. And nothing is restrained from us? What about all of those commandments I just quoted. We're still restrained by God from taking the glenings of the harvest.

Chances are, that is related to the harvest being left on the ground too long and to spoil. These are direct commands to the hebrew people in the ways of conduct. Some of the things have to do soley with health benefits. Like eating kosher.

Oh sure. No I totally see that, it's just that it doesn't seem like something God would hand down from the heavens that's all.

So are you trying to tell me that the bible should be taken literally because literally everything in the bible is 100% factual and accurate?

 

[Swift]

So I don't get this at all. One language? We have lots of languages. And nothing is restrained from us? What about all of those commandments I just quoted. We're still restrained by God from taking the glenings of the harvest.



Oh sure. No I totally see that, it's just that it doesn't seem like something God would hand down from the heavens that's all.

So are you trying to tell me that the bible should be taken literally because literally everything in the bible is 100% factual and accurate?

yeah, ok. read it a bit slower this time..

And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.


This was right after they tried to build the tower of Babel. To avoid another possible flood(that God said he wouldn't do). So God realized that his creation can do anything they put there mind to. Like, oh I don't know, space travel for instance?

As far as the literal thing. You have to look at the context of the verse. There are times when Jesus says to cut off your arm or gouge your eye, but it's not literal. There are times when Jesus said that you can't get into heaven except being born of the spirit. That's VERY literal.

 

[Danoff]

As far as the literal thing. You have to look at the context of the verse. There are times when Jesus says to cut off your arm or gouge your eye, but it's not literal. There are times when Jesus said that you can't get into heaven except being born of the spirit. That's VERY literal.

So which is the bit about the harvest? And which is the bit about the Earth being 6000 years old? And which is the bit about eve being created from a rib?

 

[Swift]

So which is the bit about the harvest? And which is the bit about the Earth being 6000 years old? And which is the bit about eve being created from a rib?

You know what's up with the harvest. The bible never states the earth is 6,000 years old. that was deduced by some bible scholars. I have never accepted it or stated it as truth on this forum in any way.

The part about the rib or side is literal to me.

 

[Danoff]

You know what's up with the harvest.

Not really. I know WHY it was written in the bible, but I don't know why anyone would think it was the word of God. Is it a sin for me to "wholly reap the corners of [my] field" or "gather the gleanings of [my] harvest"?

The bible never states the earth is 6,000 years old. that was deduced by some bible scholars. I have never accepted it as there is way too much evidence to the contrary.

Understood. They traced the lineage of Jesus back to Adam and Eve as recorded by the bible - which took 4000 years. Then they added 2k since Jesus died.

So is the bible literal with the generations? Or is there wiggle room there?

The part about the rib or side is literal to me.

That's because you take the bible as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I just don't see how you can believe that your God actually said this:

" neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."

or this

"Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD."

How specific do we need to be about what is bad? I mean, a stumblingblock??? It doesn't say that shalt not mock to retarded!

"Thall shalt not download mp3's unless thou pays for thine mp3's from thy purse."

 

[Swift]

Not really. I know WHY it was written in the bible, but I don't know why anyone would think it was the word of God. Is it a sin for me to "wholly reap the corners of [my] field" or "gather the gleanings of [my] harvest"?



Understood. They traced the lineage of Jesus back to Adam and Eve as recorded by the bible - which took 4000 years. Then they added 2k since Jesus died.

So is the bible literal with the generations? Or is there wiggle room there?



That's because you take the bible as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I just don't see how you can believe that your God actually said this:

" neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."

I believe he was talking to the priests about the beard thing.

The wiggle room is in the creation week and the amount of time Adam and Eve were in the Garden. Those are two things that nobody knows for sure.

you really slay me with this taking versus out of context stuff.

 

[Danoff]

I believe he was talking to the priests about the beard thing.

Ok, I don't see where it says that but... I mean I didn't realize shaving was a sin.

The wiggle room is in the creation week and the amount of time Adam and Eve were in the Garden. Those are two things that nobody knows for sure.

But we know that all of our fossils are less than 6000 years old because nothing died until Adam and eve were cast from the garden right?

 

[Swift]

Ok, I don't see where it says that but... I mean I didn't realize shaving was a sin.



But we know that all of our fossils are less than 6000 years old because nothing died until Adam and eve were cast from the garden right?

Nope, we know that people didn't die until Adam and Eve left the garden.

Now, look at the priests of the temple. They had specific instructions on how to do most everything because they were the only representatives of God to the people. There was no personal relationship as there was today.

 

[Danoff]

Nope, we know that people didn't die until Adam and Eve left the garden.

Now, look at the priests of the temple. They had specific instructions on how to do most everything because they were the only representatives of God to the people. There was no personal relationship as there was today.

Ok. So to sum it up. Regardless of the fact that the God of the bible dictates the harvest and personal hygene, and regardless of the fact that the bible says that the oceans and/or night and day were created before the sun (which makes zero sense), Swift is sticking with his position that the bible is to be taken literally on these issues and is infallible on all points. To accept evolution is unchristian and to accept that the Earth is older than 6000 years is also unchristian. Even though accepting either of those things does not preclude the acceptance of God, Jesus Christ, or the messages of the bible.

 

[Famine]

The part about the rib or side is literal to me.

If it's literal, which is it? Rib or side?

Shouldn't men have fewer ribs than women if this was the case?

 

[Swift]

Ok. So to sum it up. Regardless of the fact that the God of the bible dictates the harvest and personal hygene, and regardless of the fact that the bible says that the oceans and/or night and day were created before the sun (which makes zero sense), Swift is sticking with his position that the bible is to be taken literally on these issues and is infallible on all points. To accept evolution is unchristian and to accept that the Earth is older than 6000 years is also unchristian. Even though accepting either of those things does not preclude the acceptance of God, Jesus Christ, or the messages of the bible.

1) You're not a christian so how would you know what's "unchristian"
2) There are actually 613 specific rules for the hebrews of the old testament. So God got into just about every aspect of life.
3) God cannot be defined by our standards. For us, light is impossible without the sun. For God, that's cake.
4) To accept evolution as the origin of species is to directly contradict what the bible says.

Famine: Some translations say rib, some say "side". Obviously we're talking about a part of the body close to the man's heart.

 

[Famine]

That's the thing though, isn't it? How can you take something literally when you don't even know what the words are?

 

[Danoff]

1) You're not a christian so how would you know what's "unchristian"

I was attempting to summarize YOUR response. I was putting words in your mouth.

2) There are actually 613 specific rules for the hebrews of the old testament. So God got into just about every aspect of life.

Kinda chatty isn't he. Somehow I'd think the lord of existance would have better things to do then to tell the hebrews how they should shave.

3) God cannot be defined by our standards. For us, light is impossible without the sun. For God, that's cake.

I understand that. I was just saying that it doesn't make sense. Why would go and break the laws of physics (which I'm sure he's capable of) when he could just has easily have done things in a different order and obeyed the laws of physics.

4) To accept evolution as the origin of species is to directly contradict what the bible says.

It doesn't contradict the spirit of the bible though. Apparently to pick all of your grapes from the vine contradicts what the bible says also, but I don't think that you would consider it a sin.

 

[Swift]

That's the thing though, isn't it? How can you take something literally when you don't even know what the words are?

I was simply trying not to step on anyone else's translastion that they read. I read the KJV and it says "rib"

 

[Famine]

The "V" being the salient part.

So it's possible for two people to believe the Bible literally and hold differing viewpoints. Does that not tell you anything?

 

[Swift]

The "V" being the salient part.

So it's possible for two people to believe the Bible literally and hold differing viewpoints. Does that not tell you anything?

Yeah, the same thing that it tells me when different scientests have different viewpoints. on the SAME data.

 

[Famine]

Obviously not, since you cling to the former and decry the latter.

 

[Swift]

Obviously not, since you cling to the former and decry the latter.

I don't throw out all science. That would be lunacy. I believe what the word of God says. But, science can't prove what we're talking about anyway.

 

[Swift]

It doesn't contradict the spirit of the bible though. Apparently to pick all of your grapes from the vine contradicts what the bible says also, but I don't think that you would consider it a sin.

I like what Pako said about this:

I’m not quite sure, however, why you quoted verses that were specific instructions for the people that were liberated out of Egypt. All though we can learn from these instructions as examples, they not the law. Other “laws” of the Old Testament were the old “law” where Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection did away with the old law, with Christ being the new covenant, offering the new law.

 

[Danoff]

I like what Pako said about this:

To sidestep Pako's response I would only have to add the phrase "for the people liberated from Egypt" after the word "Apparently".

Try to make the best argument you can out of what I've written. It will save me a post or two in clarification when you decide to poke at holes that aren't there.

Also, which ones were commandments for us all, and which ones were specific instrcutions only for certain people?

 

[Swift]

To sidestep Pako's response I would only have to add the phrase "for the people liberated from Egypt" after the word "Apparently".

Try to make the best argument you can out of what I've written. It will save me a post or two in clarification when you decide to poke at holes that aren't there.

Also, which ones were commandments for us all, and which ones were specific instrcutions only for certain people?

Which ape like things became us and which ones went to the apes?

 

[code_kev]

I don't throw out all science. That would be lunacy. I believe what the word of God says. But, science can't prove what we're talking about anyway.

You only throw out science that doesn't agree with your faith. Calling the Bible the word of God is abit...off. God never wrote it, people did. This is why it has many contradictions. One would expect a being of infinte power who created a planet and everything on it to be able to at least sort their own Holy book out! That's how I see it anyway.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Which ape like things became us and which ones went to the apes?

" The direct lineage from the ancestor of both man and the modern apes to modern man is not known. Evidence is increasing. Thousands of relics fit the general pattern."

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html

"The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that some of the "humans" have a brain size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very humanlike teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis 1989)

This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. As will be shown, creationists themselves cannot agree which fossils are humans and which are apes. It would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes.."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html


If I quote sources, I can't say anything too silly

 

[Pako]

To sidestep Pako's response I would only have to add the phrase "for the people liberated from Egypt" after the word "Apparently".

Try to make the best argument you can out of what I've written. It will save me a post or two in clarification when you decide to poke at holes that aren't there.

Also, which ones were commandments for us all, and which ones were specific instrcutions only for certain people?

Christ's law is to love, because God first loved us. This is a message for ALL of us, God's grace is available to all of us, and his love is available to all of us. He then gives us examples and "how to's" so that we can express love by His grace. Quite a different list from the original 613 laws that the Jews enumerated.