LouF95

Here is a 4 minute video by a Christian scientist who explains fused chromosome #2. This is one of many pieces of evidence for evolution. ** Video Link removed ** [ Please note that all videos need to be placed in the video forum for approval before they are placed on Worthy] [Please do not post links to videos outside of the video forum]

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. Let's jump around the Torah a bit to see it's historical reliability. The census taken one year after the Exodus shows that in 3 generations, Manasseh had grown from a single person to a clan/tribe that had 32,200 makes over the age of 20. Levi's great grandsons were Moses & Aaron. Not long after the Exodus, the tribe of Levi numbered no less than 22,000 males. While the Israelites were fighting the Amalekites, Moses watched from the top of a mountain. When Moses kept his arm raised, the Israelites were winning. When Moses lowered his arm, the Amalekites were winning. Is this metaphor or history? To me it shouts metaphor. The author was trying to say something. The story of Isaac, Jacob and Esau closely correlates with the history of Judah & Edom. Also, can we reliably take the story of Jacob and Esau fighting in the womb as a historical occurrence? Has any new born baby show that level of consciousnesses?

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. This is the best explanation I have come across for what the Adam & Eve story means: Man has moral autonomy and is free to disregard moral law but he must be prepared to suffer the consequences of his actions. Evil is the product of human behavior, not a principle inherent in the cosmos. Man's disobedience is the cause of the human predicament. Human freedom can be at the same time an omen for disaster and a challenge and opportunity. As an aside, I believe the snake was not the devil. It was a symbol for man's desire for sensation and experience. The Hebrew word used is "nahash" which translates to snake or serpent. Genesis 3:1 describes the snake as crafty, not evil. The snake doesn't display any magical powers.

The firmament was not solid, but Genesis mentions it to be understood as a dividing layer between the air of the atmosphere, and space. It was composed of water vapor and this firmament collapsed during The Flood. This firmament is what caused rainfall, which had not occurred on the earth before the flood. The ecosystem was completely different pre-flood. So, no, this firmament could not be observed because it was destroyed during The Flood. It appears to me that the ancients viewed the firmament as a solid dome but I don't want to get bogged down with this because it will probably lead to a dead end with neither of us changing our minds. Let's just have the questions coming for now. I do take issue with your statement "It was composed of water vapor". I don't see the text supporting this. It's speculative. Firmament con notates firmness. I don't see water vapor as firm or being able to hold back the waters above it. This is an example of the inadequacy and limitations of words as a way to communicate.

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. "If you cannot trust parts of the Bible" Once it is proven that the bible is 100% factual, then it is an issue of mistrust. "then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all." This is a false dilemma. Just because I view the bible as a mix of history and narrative, doesn't render the bible as useless and a revealer of spiritual truth.

No matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” Mark 13:31. I'm not attacking the bible. I think it's a remarkable book. I only question how some people interpret it.

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Genesis describes the firmament that divides the waters above from the waters below. A firmament is solid, correct? If Genesis is not allegory in any sense as you stated(I believe it's mostly allegory) then we should be able to observe the firmament and the waters above it.

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength.

shilohlife, don't bother replying. I'm not interested in the rantings of a sad man whose mind is trapped in an unreal world. Enjoy the prison bars around your mind.

Funny you would have to run to a Jew. You purport to believe in the DH. The DH says the Torah was written until starting at 850 BC. The easiest argument for you would have been to argue that there was no Levitical priesthood and that Moses didn't deliver any commandments to Levites like Aaron because Aaron didn't really exist. Does the Jew you are running to for help understand that you don't really believe in the historicity of the Torah?? If not, I think it is a bit dishonest on your part to get him to refute me with a text you don't believe was written until after the Babylonian exile. Does he know you are using him in like that? Most DH proponents I have read believe that monotheism came about after the exile and that the Jews were monotheists prior to that. I would think that since you claim you did your homework that you would have provided answer yourself rather than being someone else's parrot. It's interesting that you don't know the Bible well enough to answer me so you have to have a Jew carry your weight in a debate. I'll answer his comments a little later on. No, several Jews. I cross reference what people tell me. I have read a variety of materials. *** Personal attack and acronym were removed. *** From the Terms of Service Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster. ... (Eph. 4: 29) Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18) The use of profanity will not be tolerated. This includes sexually explicit, vulgar, or other profane language or usernames as well as any any signs or symbols that suggests such. ... (Eph. 4: 29)

Was the author of Hebrews a Torah observant Jew? Highly doubtful. MESSIANIC JEW: Actually he was. Only a Torah observant person would know that the golden altar of incense was behind the curtain in the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement. That little detail would escape someone else. That little "detail" is wrong. His example proves your point that whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew. Hebrews 9:3-7 says that the golden incense altar was “behind the second veil” in the holy of holies. “Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant.” NIV translation. This is a mistake (which works against the missionary’s argument that an educated Jew wrote the Christian bible). Sh’mot / Exodus 30:6 tells us that the golden incense altar was to the west – in front of the dividing curtain (not behind it as Hebrews says). “And you shall place it in front of the dividing curtain, which is upon the Ark of Testimony, in front of the ark cover.” Judaica Press Translation The incense altar was positioned inside the Mishkan, between the menorah (along the southern wall) and the table (along the northern wall), facing the entrance to the Holy of Holies. The incense altar is mentioned in six places in Sh’mot (Exodus). See 31:8, 39:38, 40:5, and 40:22-26 which says: He placed the golden altar in the Tent of Meeting in front of the dividing curtain. Judaica Press Translation Which again disagrees with Hebrews as to where the golden incense altar was located. Vayikra / Leviticus 16 goes on to say that after the high priest is inside the Holy of Holies he “comes out” (Vayikra / Leviticus 16:17) from the Holy of Holies (again disagreeing with the uneducated author of Hebrews): And he shall then go out to the altar that is before the L-rd and effect atonement upon it: Vayikra / Leviticus 16:18 Judaica Press Translation. Rashi wrote: “what does Scripture mean when it says, “And he shall then go out?” Since he had just performed the blood sprinklings on the dividing curtain, standing on the inner side of the altar to sprinkle [i.e., between the altar and the dividing curtain], for the applications on the altar, [scripture] required him to “go out” to the outer side of the altar and to begin with the north-eastern corner. — [Torath Kohanim 16:45; Yoma 58b. See Mizrachi , Gur Aryeh. Also Chavel, who asserts that, according to the Reggio edition of Rashi, the Kohen Gadol did not stand beyond the altar, but alongside it, from where he commenced to apply the blood from the north-eastern corner.]”

More... (1) On Yom Kippur, the day itself serves to atone. (2) A substitutionary sacrifice, where an animal suitable for an obligatory sacrifice is substituted for another is called temurah. Does it really work? No! God does not permit a substitute. (Lev. 27:9-10)

Shiloh, Another retort to your claims. MESSIANIC JEW: That was the Azazel. The other goat was killed on behalf of all of the people. It made atonement on their behalf for all of their sins. Jesus was typified in both goats. The goat that was slain and the goat that bore the sins of the people away. You're right. He's wrong. He really needs to actually READ the bible! The first goat was a חַטָּאת / chatat (sin offer). A cheit is an unintentional sin through carelessness -- a "missing of the mark." A sin qorban (sacrifice) could not be brought for intentional, willful sins. The high priest brought a bull as a חַטָּאת / chatat (sin offer) for himself and his household. The first of two identical goats was sacrificed as a חַטָּאת / chatat for the unintentional sins of the Israelites. The bull for Aaron and the priests and the goat which was sacrificed for the people were for mistakes (accidental sins, aka a "missing of the mark") and for potentially defiling the Temple grounds (e.g., not being ritually pure by having bathed in a mikvah prior to entering the Temple). Neither the bull or the goat atoned for "big" sins. It begins with When Aaron enters [this inner] sanctuary, it must be with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. (16:3) The bull is to cleanse the inner part of the Temple from ritual impurities that priests may have made during the year. Remember that chatat (sin offers) are for mistakes, a "missing of the mark" -- accidental sins. The bull in question is for Aaron (the high priest himself). So ask yourself: if two goats (one killed and one not) atoned for the sins of all Israel why the bull? Why the ram? Why the other requirements? What other requirements? READ the chapter! He must put on a sanctified white linen tunic, and have linen pants on his body. He must [also] gird himself with a linen sash, and bind his [head] with a linen turban. These are sacred vestments, and [therefore], before putting them on, he must immerse in a mikvah. The high priest must have on very specific clothes. Without these vestments the sacrifice is not acceptable. Get that? The blood sacrifice is UNACCEPTABLE if the priest does not wear the right clothes! Now lest you think this is exaggerating -- go back and read the first line of chapter 16. It speaks of the death of Aaron's sons. They died because they brought an unauthorized fire (sacrifice) to G-d. He shall [begin by] presenting his own sin offering bull and atoning for himself and his family (16:6) The high priest (in this case Aaron, Moses' brother) atones for his sins and for his family -- again accidental sins. Now read lines 15 and 16 which are about the bull Aaron sacrifices for himself and the goat which he sacrifices for the Israelites -- it is not that this goat atones for the sins of the Israelites in general (lumped with the goat for Azazel) -- but it has to do with ritual purity and accidental defilement of the Temple, as the bull did for Aaron himself. READ the text! He shall then slaughter the people's sin offering goat, and bring its blood into [the inner sanctuary] beyond the cloth partition. He shall do the same with this blood as he did with the bull's blood, sprinkling it both above the ark cover and directly toward the ark cover. 16 Thus shall he provide atonement upon the Sanctuary for the contaminations of the Children of Israel. . . Contaminations refers to Israelites entering the sanctuary or eating sacrifice while ritually unclean (Rashi; see Leviticus 15:31) You [Moses and Aaron] must warn the Israelites about their impurity, so that their impurity not cause them to die if they defile the tabernacle that I have placed among them. (Leviticus 15:31) The people knew that those sacrifices did not atone for their serious transgressions. The second goat (the scapegoat) is sent to Azazel in the wilderness. Keep in mind that a person can turn to G-d at any time seeking forgiveness. The uniqueness of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is that on that day G-d comes to us. This shows just how loving, forgiving and kind G-d truly is. Not only are blood sacrifices not required for Him to forgive us -- He will come to us, the King from his Palace, to His creations.

Shiloh, you are totally misrepresenting OT sacrificial law. My associate, who is a highly learned Jew has responded to your claims. MESSIANIC JEW: There is plenty of evidence of substitutionary atonement. You are simply not being honest about the text. As for unintentional sins.... You are forgetting something. There were two kinds of "sin offerings" one is the sin offering. But there was also the guilt offering, the asham. The difference between the sin offering and the guilt offering is that the sin offering was for the root cause of sin. The guilt offering deals with the fruit of sin and covers intentional sins and unintentional sins. Totally wrong. He is totally misrepresenting the אָשָׁם asham when he says it was for intentional sins (as if it covered everything not covered by the cheit - the "sin" offer). The אָשָׁם asham was for three different types of very specific violations. 1. unintentionally taking and using something from the holy Temple. The person must return the items, add 1/5th in restitution and bring an asham; 2. asham taluy is for when you aren't sure if you sinned or not, so just to be sure you bring an asham taluy. If later you discover that you did commit a cheit (accidental sin) you bring a chatat (sin offer); 3. asham g'zelot if you lied under oath defrauding someone of his things or money. In this case again you have to return the stolen things and add 1/5th to it as well as bring the asham g'zelot. Your missionary is ignoring the fact that the worse sins could not be atoned for with blood sacrifice. These include עוון avon (iniquity) or the פֶּֽשַׁע pĕsha (transgression, willful rebellion against G-d) your missionary totally ignores these more serious sins, trying to say that anything that isn't a cheit (an accidental sin) is an asham. Totally not true. עוון Avon (translated by Christians as iniquity) is an impulsive act of lust or uncontrollable urges (could not be atoned for with a sacrifice). An avon (unless it falls under the asham talu or asham g'zelot) cannot be rectified with a qorban, and neither can a pesha. Repentance and turning to G-d to seek forgiveness for sins against G-d and seeking forgiveness to any person that might have been harmed from that person are the methods of atonement; פֶּֽשַׁע pĕsha' is usually translated by Christians as "transgression." It means to willfully go against G-d. It means "rebellion" (could not be atoned for with a sacrifice) -- but other things in this life do atone for them. 1 Kings 8:46-50 include chatat, avon, rasha (wicked or evil) and pesha are atoned for by prayer. Ezikiel 18:21-32 speaks of sin, iniquity and willful rebellion against G-d all being forgiven through repentance. chatat (18:21), pesha (18:22), chatat (18:24), pesha (18:28), pesha and avon (18:30) are all atoned through repentance. "By loving kindness and truth iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6). "If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27). This whole fixation on blood, blood, blood by missionaries is not supported by the Jewish bible. The missionaries take the statement that blood can atone for SOME sins and somehow morph it into "you need blood for sins to be forgiven." This is akin to eating a slice of pizza because you are hungry and then insisting that the only type of food that exists in the world is pizza. How crazy is that?

So as I assumed, you don't really know anything. You're just parroting what you are told to say. Your Jewish "friend" can be offended all he wants. I didn't say that RASHI tampered with Isaiah. I said that the Rabbis re-interpreted Isaiah and other Messianic prophecies in order to "write" the Messiah out of those passages. The notion that Isaiah 53 speaks of Israel finds its origin from RASHI They did the same type of thing to other Messianic prophecies. They simply offered "new" interpretations of Messianic prophecies and changed meaning of the passage so that Jews would not be led to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Interesting... Now for some truth on the matter. "Now on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be for you a time of holy convocation, and you shall afflict yourselves and present a food offering to the LORD. And you shall not do any work on that very day, for it is a Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. (Lev 23:27-28) "And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins. (Lev 16:29-30) Yes, there was an atonement made for the sanctuary. But as you can see above, that is not the ONLY atonement made above. And again, since Hebrews 9 and 10 are a commentary of Yom Kippur in the light of Jesus' sacrifice, I re-submit the following passage as further confirmation that Jesus as the Yom Kippur sin offering made atonement for our sins on our behalf. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Heb 10:10-14) My contention is there is no such thing as substitutionary atonement in Mosaic law. There is a big difference between atonement and substitutionary atonement. Since there is no indication in the OT of substitutionary atonement and since God forgave the Isrealites numerous times without requiring a sacrifice and since animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins, the concept of Jesus having to substitute for us or taking the punishment we deserve is on shaky ground. Whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew. Why should his commentary trump the Torah? He offered his interpretation as the the meaning of Jesus's death. I don't see Hebrews 10:10-14 making any definitive statement that Jesus's death was substitutionary. He could have meant to say whatever you think separates you from God, Jesus removed it. Just a possibility. Here is how someone attains forgiveness for the sin of stealing someone's camel: 1) Repent 2) Have remorse 3) Give the victim 5 animals for every animal stolen 4) Ask forgiveness from the victim. No animal sacrifice was necessary. You know the first goat on Yom Kippur was released into the wilderness. He was only killed if he came back(the villagers didn't want the goat to bring the sins back to the village)

Actually, no. Since you make the claim that Genesis is allegory, the onus is on you to provide evidence that it actually is. Or at least some indicators that we should view the majority of the text as allegory. That the Prophets, OT Jews and Apostles viewed the text as historical would, in fact carry a great deal of weight, since they would know much better how to interpret the text since they were much closer, time-wise to the original author(s). So if the Prophets viewed Genesis as historical, and took the events as fact, why would it be an acceptable for someone in the 21st century to suddenly label it allegory? If the Jews and the Apostles viewed it as historical, and since the Apostles built the church, I would think that no one, who genuinely loved Christ would wish to tamper with that. If the Prophets and the Apostle's word that it is historical isn't good enough, then no ones would be. And that would be a sad commentary on someone's faith. The concept of large chunks of scripture being suddenly viewed as allegory, not literally was unknown until Origen, Philo and Augustine invented the concept, and invented it as a jumping-off point for Replacement Theology. Allegory has always been used by the Catholic church as a device to change the meaning of scripture to support a false doctrine which cannot be supported any other way. The use of allegory has now been adopted by modern Liberal scholars as a device to render the text helpless to combat things like social doctrine, homosexuality, and evolution, because holding actual biblical positions on those issues would be uncomfortable and not secular society-friendly. Consequently, liberal proponents default to the secular side. And spiritually-speaking, that is a huge mistake. This is an assertion of what the ancients believed or didn't believe. We weren't there to interview the general population as to what degree they took Genesis as factual. I did get this response from a professor at Hebrew University. His response is an assertion but a highly educated assertion. As I said before, there should be no default position. Truth seeking begins with objectivity and starting with no assumptions. Of course objectivity is a difficult goal for us puny humans. PROFESSOR'S RESPONSE: Most people would agree that B'réshіt is historical from the 12th chapter onwards. As to the earlier chapters, opinions vary from considering all eleven chapters as 100% literal at one end of the spectrum to seeing all eleven chapters as 100% allegorical at the opposite end—with many subsidiary views in between. You pays your money and takes your choice, as they say. There is an old saying: "Don't mistake education for intelligence." I know exactly what you mean. By the way. You made an outrageous claim about Rashi. My Jewish friends find it offensive. Show me definitive proof he or any other Jewish person tampered with Isaiah. Also, let's get back to Yom Kippur. What happened to the goat after the priest finished putting his hands on the goat? There was a second goat. Why was he sacrificed? It was for the sin of defiling the temple, one of the special situations besides covering unintentional sins and this goat didn't take the punishment in place of the sinner. What if someone stole someone's camel? What would the sinner have to do according to Mosaic sacrificial law?

That does not answer the question, and no, the question is not "malformed." It would seem you just don't want to answer it because you have avoided it like the plague. God created mankind perfect, i.e., sinless. So sin had to be introduced somehow. If it wan't introduced at the Fall, then how, and when was it introduced? It isn't a difficult question. Obviously someone had to be the first sinner but it wasn't Adam & Eve. The author of Genesis claims that man was created perfect but how can we ever prove that as fact?

Actually, no. Since you make the claim that Genesis is allegory, the onus is on you to provide evidence that it actually is. Or at least some indicators that we should view the majority of the text as allegory. That the Prophets, OT Jews and Apostles viewed the text as historical would, in fact carry a great deal of weight, since they would know much better how to interpret the text since they were much closer, time-wise to the original author(s). So if the Prophets viewed Genesis as historical, and took the events as fact, why would it be an acceptable for someone in the 21st century to suddenly label it allegory? If the Jews and the Apostles viewed it as historical, and since the Apostles built the church, I would think that no one, who genuinely loved Christ would wish to tamper with that. If the Prophets and the Apostle's word that it is historical isn't good enough, then no ones would be. And that would be a sad commentary on someone's faith. The concept of large chunks of scripture being suddenly viewed as allegory, not literally was unknown until Origen, Philo and Augustine invented the concept, and invented it as a jumping-off point for Replacement Theology. Allegory has always been used by the Catholic church as a device to change the meaning of scripture to support a false doctrine which cannot be supported any other way. The use of allegory has now been adopted by modern Liberal scholars as a device to render the text helpless to combat things like social doctrine, homosexuality, and evolution, because holding actual biblical positions on those issues would be uncomfortable and not secular society-friendly. Consequently, liberal proponents default to the secular side. And spiritually-speaking, that is a huge mistake. This is an assertion of what the ancients believed or didn't believe. We weren't there to interview the general population as to what degree they took Genesis as factual. I did get this response from a professor at Hebrew University. His response is an assertion but a highly educated assertion. As I said before, there should be no default position. Truth seeking begins with objectivity and starting with no assumptions. Of course objectivity is a difficult goal for us puny humans. PROFESSOR'S RESPONSE: Most people would agree that B'réshіt is historical from the 12th chapter onwards. As to the earlier chapters, opinions vary from considering all eleven chapters as 100% literal at one end of the spectrum to seeing all eleven chapters as 100% allegorical at the opposite end—with many subsidiary views in between. You pays your money and takes your choice, as they say.

Yes. I did. Sin is simply missing the mark or falling short of what God expects of us. The original question is a malformed question.

Response: 1.Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996). Links: Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof14 References: 1.Lie-Svendsen, O. and M. H. Rees, 1996. Helium escape from the terrestrial atmosphere - the ion outflow mechanism. Journal of Geophysical Research 101: 2435-2443. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This claim is out of date. However it can be shown that so much helium is still in the rock, that it is most consistent with young Earth. The helium issue seems to be handled well in this article: "Some creationists claim that there is too much helium in Earth's crust for the earth to be any more than two million years old (Sarfati, 2005). If Earth has existed for billions of years, there should be little helium left in deeper rocks as a result of radioactive alpha decay. They claim that if God had created the Earth with initial Helium in the atmosphere, the maximum age would be even lower than two million-perhaps even as little as 6,000 years (Humphreys et. al., 2005). The RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project, cosponsored by the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and Answers in Genesis, claims that the amount of helium present in minerals at different depths of the earth's crust is too high to support day-age or evolutionist theories about an old Earth. They sent rock samples to a lab for helium diffusion tests, and their results were that the rock samples have too little resistance to the diffusion of Helium through the rock for the age to be greater than at most two million years. The conclusion reached by the RATE project as to the reason for the increased amount of Helium is that sometime in the past few thousand years there was a period of increased radioactivity (DeYoung, 2005, 78). A fundamental problem with this hypothesis, however, is that the amount of energy released during the accelerated decay proposed by RATE would potentially be enough to evaporate the oceans and melt the Earth's crust (Ross, 2004, 179)." For the full article: http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html As you already know, the Institute for Creation Research, The Discovery Institute and answersingenesis are not reliable.

Is it possible that there is a God and evolution was His method of creation?

Yes. Okay, then. Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically. OH please... Don't get me started on NT Wright. He is hardly a conservative and one of the most dangerous, antisemitic theologians out there. If you can't provide the internal textual indicators that show the text of Gen. 1-3 need to be taken allegorically, the text must be literal by default. I don't have to prove anything. If you can't show the evidence for your claims, the text stands as written. Sorry, but they are finding all kinds extra-biblical documents dated to the wrong period if the DH were correct. I assume you claim that it is not talking about Jesus, right? I suppose you will want to explain why it it is some other king or something. Isaiah 9:6 King James Translation: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a child is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Correct translation from Hebrew: "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and He, the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace." Isaiah was speaking about someone already born and G-d shall name him Ruler of Peace. Interesting take on that. Now how about a dose of truth??? The problem with your exegesis is that you only quoted part of the prophecy. The entire prophecy says: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. (Isa 9:6-7) Specific parts of this prophetic word preclude your attempt to make this about someone other than Jesus. It is a well known fact that during the Middle Ages, RASHI was one of the many Rabbis who were revising Jewish thought and were removing from Messianic prophecies any references to the Messiah they contained and reinterpreted Messianic prophecies to mean something else in an attempt to blunt the ability of Christians to use Messianic prophecies to show Jesus in the Old Testament. So using Jewish commentaries that purposely try to hide the Messianic nature of Messianic prophecy is a waste of time and bandwidth. You might as well have just posted, "blah, blah, blah" for what its worth to post a bunch of stuff by Jewish Rabbis. There is NO way that "El Gibbour" can reference anyone other than God in this particular passage. The context will not allow for it. Context is far more important than word meaning. How a phrase or word is used is vital to understanding the text. You cannot get "strong man" out of El Gibbour. No one honest about the text would ever translate it that way. Avi-Ad (Everlasting Father) refers to Jesus as "father of eternity." It is not claiming that Jesus is the Father. It uses the word "father" in a nonpaternal way, much the same way we use it to refer to Alexander Graham Bell as the "father of modern telecommunications." Even more, in verse 7 of this prophecy, the person who is being called "Mighty God, and the father of eternity is also a descendent of David who will be king and His kingdom will never end. In fact, it is emphasized as being "from this time and forevermore." It parallels what the angel told Mary in Luke 1:31-33: And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luk 1:31-33) The angel says of Jesus: 1. He will be called the Son of God (Is. 9:6) 2. He will be a direct descendent of King David (Is. 9:7) 3. God the Father will give Jesus the throne of David (Is. 9:7) 4. He will reign over the House of Jacob forever (Is. 9:7) 5. Of His Kingdom there will be no end (Is. 9:7) Jesus is the Son of God and He is the descendent of David. The Angel speaks to Mary and almost recites the Isaiah prophecy word for word. So your position really has no biblical basis in truth or reality. Your Isaiah translation is incorrect. Reread the correct translation I gave you. He(El Gibbour) called his name him Ruler of Peace. From someone learned: Isaiah was simply saying that Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) had been born (past tense) which he had been! Re: él-gibbor it is part of a sentence which says 'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty G-d, Father of Eternity' (so G-d) has named the child Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) 'Peace-Prince'. כִּי־יֶֽלֶד יֻלַּד־לָֽנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן־לָֽנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל־שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּֽלֶא־יוֹעֵץ־אֵל־גִּבּוֹר־אֲבִי־עַד "שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם"׃ ...ki yeled yullad lanu, bein nittan lanu, vat'hi hamisrah al shich'mo; vayikra sh'mo pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad "sar shalom" ...a boy has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and one day the responsibility of kingship will rest on his shoulder... [God] has named him "Peace-Prince". Actually, I cheated slightly in my translation of that verse. The Hebrew text doesn't say "God" (a single word) in the second half of the verse: it uses a unique string of Divine titles "Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity" that occur together in no other place in the Scriptures. That's why I have set the name God in brackets—taking this small liberty in translation does not affect the meaning in any way, but it does make the verse very much easier to read and understand. The first thing that is obvious from this verse is that the prophet is talking about a boy who had already been born. Hmm... so we need to know when Y'shayahu made this statement/prediction... and it would also be helpful to know whom he was talking to. Can we find this out from the text? Yes: we can—the opening of chapter 9 "those who walked in darkness have seen bright light, over those who were living in a land of deathly shadow light has blazed out!" refers back to the abortive attack on Y'rushalayim by R'tzin and Pekaḥ, the kings of Syria ("Aram") and the northern Hebrew kingdom, recorded at the very beginning of chapter 7, and to the subsequent deaths of Pekaḥ inAḥaz's 4th year (M'lachim Beit 15:30) and R'tzin shortly afterwards (M'lachim Beit 16:9) and the consequent removal of the threat that had been hanging over Y'hudah since their attack, which had been foretold by Y'shayahu in 7:14-16. Chapter 9 was therefore written in (or very soon after) the 4th year of Aḥaz's reign over Y'hudah, and most likely it was Aḥaz himself that Y'shayahu was speaking to. If you look in "King James's Per-Version", or any other christian "per-version", you may notice that their translation is rather different from mine. Okay, it will have the string of Divine titles "Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity" written out in full, but you will find that the difference is much greater than just this—the verb וַיִּקְרָא vayikra, "has called" (past tense, active voice) will have been cunningly changed into "will be called" (future tense, passive voice), with the result that the string of Divine titles are now subsumed into the child's name. I have carefully examined the entry in "Strong's Concordance" for the verb וַיִּקְרָא vayikra in this verse, and also the entries relating to the same word in many other verses (it occurs throughout the Scriptures more than 200 times). Every single instance other than this one is translated as "called" or "he called", giving the phonetic "pronunciation" (written as qara') of the verb's root letters kuf, resh, alef—but not the pronunciation of the form of the word that occurs in the specific verse. And in every case other than this one, the tense is given as "perfect" (past tense)—Dr Strong does not give the "voice" of a verb (active or passive) at all (unless you understand what "Stem—Qal" etc mean). Thus, according to "Strong's Concordance", וַיִּקְרָא vayikra is always the "perfect tense" of the "Qal stem" (that is, the active conjugation) of the verb "to call" and means "[he] called"—except in this one single case. In Y'shayahu 9:5 (9:6 in christian "holy bibles"), according to "Strong's Concordance", וַיִּקְרָא vayikra suddenly becomes the "imperfect" (future) tense of the verb "to call" (although still the "Qal stem"), and means "shall be called". No explanation is offered as to why it should be translated using the future passive in this one, apparently unique, case. So, how should this verse be translated correctly? The first half is relatively straightforward: "...for a boy has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and one day he is going to be king" (literally "and the kingship will rest on his shoulder"). The Old English usages "is born" and "is given" that are found in KJPV are especially unhelpful because they sound very much like the present tense to an uneducated speaker of modern English, but they are actually ordinary perfects in 17th century English, equivalent to "has been born" and "has been given" in the modern idiom (similar constructions are common, for example, in Shakespeare's writing). It's when we come to the second half of the verse that complications arise. Yet the verse is actually very simple, apart from the use of the compound Divine Name pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad ("Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity"). Now, if a statement such as Y'shayahu is making here was written in the context of ordinary prose narrative, the normal word order would be something likevayikra A et sh'mo B (i.e. "he called, A, his name, B", meaning "A named him B"). But the prophets used poetic language, and in poetry the poet often does not follow the normal word order. In this verse Y'shayahu places שְׁמוֹ sh'mo ("his name") directly after the verb וַיִּקְרָאvayikra ("he [has] called"), and before the subject of the verb—the one doing the "calling"—so that the structure of the statement becomes "he has called, his name, A, B"—"A" being the one giving the name, and "B" being the actual name given. We therefore have— וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹvayikra sh'mo and He has called his name .....um, who has?— פֶּֽלֶא־יוֹעֵץ־אֵל־גִּבּוֹר־אֲבִי־עַד pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad "God" (lit., 'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity') .....and what has He named him?— שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם sar-shalom "Peace-Prince" ...that is to say, "and 'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity' has named the child 'Peace-Prince'." The way this verse is translated in KJPV and other christian "per-versions" is ludicrous and completely ignores cultural context—no Hebrew would ever eventhink of referring to another person by any of God's "Names" (much less of actually naming a child "God"). This would present no problem to a christian, who has been conditioned all his life to think of Yéshu as "being" God, but Hebrews are not conditioned in this way and are raised knowing that Scripture says "God is NOT a man". In any case, who was this "boy who had been born for them"—this "son who had been given to them"? The answer is obvious to anyone who has studied Hebrew history of that period, but christians do not in general concern themselves with Hebrew history because it "isn't important", so they have no clue what or whom Y'shayahu is talking about in this verse. Any reader who is interested in this subject is invited to download the book Biblical Chronology (12.3Mb), co-written by myself and my cousin Dr B'tzalel Barzillai, which provides an introduction to the study of the historical narratives in the Scriptures and provides a year-by-year timeline covering the entire period from the "creation" of Adam in about 3924BCE to the completion of the Second Temple in 516BCE, the 6th year of Darius I (Ezra 6:15), which just happens to be exactly seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar II in 586BCE. We concluded earlier that Y'shayahu made the prediction we have been examining in or very soon after the 4th year of King Aḥaz ofY'hudah's reign (742-727BCE), and was probably speaking to Aḥaz himself when he made it. Aḥaz reigned for 16 years (M'lachim Beit16:2) and, when he died, he was succeded by his son Ḥizkiyyahu (M'lachim Beit 16:20), who reigned from 726 until 698BCE. Furthermore, Ḥizkiyyahu was 25 years old when he came to the throne (M'lachim Beit 18:2), so he was already 9 years old at the beginning of his father Aḥaz's reign and about 13 years old at the time Y'shayahu announced that God had named someone the "Peace-Prince". In the 14th year of Ḥizkiyyahu's reign (713BCE), he was attacked by the armies of the Assyrian king Sargon II (reigned 721-705BCE), commanded by the king's son Sanḥériv or "Sennacherib" (M'lachim Beit 18:13ff). The account in M'lachim doesn't mention Sargon, but 18:17 does refer to a military commander named Tartan, who Y'shayahu tells us was Sargon's general (Y'shayahu 20:1); in fact, Sanḥérivdidn't become king of Assyria until after his father's death in 705BCE, nearly ten years after this campaign. Rejecting the Assyrian commander's crude threat to maintain the siege of Y'rushalayim until the people were reduced to "eating their own @$*! and drinking their own piss" (M'lachim Beit 18:27, Y'shayahu 36:12—literal translation) if the city did not capitulate, the piousḤizkiyyahu appealed to the prophet Y'shayahu for help (M'lachim Beit 19:1-2) and, as a result of this, God intervened and 185,000 Assyrian soldiers miraculously died in their sleep that very night (M'lachim Beit 19:35). After that, Sanḥériv slunk back to Nin'veh in humiliation, never to venture forth against Y'hudah again. He was assassinated by two of his own sons (but see Prof. Parpola's paper The Murderer of Sennacherib) more than 30 years later in 681BCE, and was succeeded by another son called Ésar-Ḥaddon (M'lachim Beit19:37, and corroborated by surviving Assyrian records). After the disastrous attack on Y'rushalayim in 713BCE (i.e. disastrous for the Assyrians), there was peace in Y'hudah for more than 100 years, which lasted until Pharaoh Wehem-ib-ra Nekau II (610-595BCE)—the Biblical "Pharaoh Necho"—attacked Josiah at M'giddo in 610BCE (M'lachim Beit 23:29). Thus, by his piety, Ḥizkiyyahu (who was about 13 years old when Y'shayahu prophesied that "a boy has been born for us who one day will be king and God has named him Peace-Prince") initiated more than a century of peace and tranquillity in Y'hudah—the longest period of continuous peace that the kingdom of Y'hudah ever enjoyed. Can there really be any doubt whomY'shayahu was talking about?

generalizations are bad As Hippie advised, let's keep this about the topic and not about each other. It isn't about "each other," and that would be an ad hominem. If you can question the motive of a person for starting a thread, I can do the exact same thing to you. I will ask again, if this person was so sure they were "right," why would they need to behave in this way? Would you say that there is some possibility that the professor is generally a gracious man but he came to a boiling point after years of having to explain over and over that there is ample evidence for evolution. If you aren't willing to accept this as a possibility then how could you call yourself objective?

Salvation from what, then? If there is no sin then what precisely did we need salvation from? Evidently, it is safe to say that when you read the Bible, you don't believe what you read in it, right? Here is what the Bible says: And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Heb 10:10-14) According to you, this passage is wrong. Why is it wrong? How exactly does that work if Jesus didn't for sin as you have previously stated? Can you work out just how you arrived at that conclusion? What do you mean by personal transformation? What is the bondage to sin mean in your estimation? Lets put the book of Hebrews aside. No, let's not put it aside. The passage from Hebrews clearly shows that Jesus is an offering for sin. Explain why that passage is wrong. That is absolutely incorrect on all counts. In the book of Hebrews which lays out the New Testament's case for the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for the sins of man, it recounts the death of Jesus in the light of Yom Kippur in which two goats were used and one was sacrificed for the sins of the people and there is no indication that it was for unintentional sins. Furthermore, even if certain sin offerings were for unintentional sins it still speaks of a substitutionary sacrifice. If the animal didn't die then the person had to die. The animal died in his place. I would also add that you don't understand the sin problem at all. Man's sin problem is not about what he does as much as it is about what He is. Man is a sinner by default. The Bible teaches that Jesus' death on the cross performed a two fold work. His blood was shed for the forgiveness of all of our sins AND His death paid the price for our sin condition that separates us from God. Jesus' death on the cross was to satisfy God's justice, His just claim that we deserve death. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Rom 5:6-9) That passage clearly lays out the biblical truth that Jesus died for us and that He died to save us from God's wrath against us which was a just wrath that we deserved. Jesus bore God's wrath. Isaiah 53, speaking of Jesus says this: Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:4-6) He carried OUR grief and OUR sorrows. He was pierced for OUR transgressions, crushed for OUR iniquities and he was punished for OUR peace. The Lord has laid upon Him the Iniquity of US ALL. It is clearly a substitutionary act taking place on the cross of Jesus. He died for our sins. Sorry, but your views are simply not credible or biblical. You don't understand the Yom Kippur sacrifice. The Suffering Servant in Isaiah is Israel but there is no way I'm going to change your mind. I sure hope I don't become like you.

Salvation from what, then? If there is no sin then what precisely did we need salvation from? Evidently, it is safe to say that when you read the Bible, you don't believe what you read in it, right? Here is what the Bible says: And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Heb 10:10-14) According to you, this passage is wrong. Why is it wrong? How exactly does that work if Jesus didn't for sin as you have previously stated? Can you work out just how you arrived at that conclusion? What do you mean by personal transformation? What is the bondage to sin mean in your estimation? Lets put the book of Hebrews aside. My point is that there is no indication of sustitutionary sacrifice in the OT, there is no indication from God's actions or words in the OT that He expects substitutionary atonement and that His solution for the sins of the world would be the killing of His Son in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and it had no effect on more serious sins such as stealing someone's camel.