Evolutionist Professor Goes Ballistic

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

That is a fair challenge but you are implying that Genesis, as 100% historical, is the default position and the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise.  I think we each have to prove our position.

 

 

You implied that the ancient Jews and prophets took Genesis as historical.  That doesn't prove historicity.  The ancient greeks believed there was a Mt. Olympus.  Does that make Mt. Olympus historical?  Would a trained historian accept your claim as proof.

 

You said Jesus mentioned Adam & Eve so Adam & Eve must have existed.  You need to prove 1) That Jesus took A&E as historical when He mentioned it.  I can mention Dick Tracy to make a point about detective work but I know Dick Tracy doesn't exist.  2)  That Jesus actually mentioned A&E.  To do that, you need to prove the bible as a 100% historical reliable text.  The gospel writer may have included Jesus in his parable.  He may have put the words in Jesus's mouth to give his writing more authority.  He may have misquoted Jesus.

 

For clarification, let me ask you.  Is Genesis 100% factual?  Is any segment allegorical, i.e. the talking snake, the tree A&E were supposed to say away from?

 

 

 

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."

[LouF95]

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

The author of Genesis is God who is all-knowing and never lies.  He is incapable of lying.  So if He says it, it is true.  God says that Adam was the first man to sin and Paul confirms this in Romans 5:12-21.  

[Tolken]

Shiloh357 - You need to believe the Bible instead weaving fairytales..

 

Actually, I believe the Bible and still you have no explanation for "Let the land, waters, etc.",  mediate creation is not  "my invention" but clearly in the text. That Creation was a supernatural event is not the question, rather the question is how?  I have offered an intellectually honest answer which you and others are incapable of addressing except for vague attempts to belittle. That is where we stand...........

[Tolken]

Cobalt1959 - And when it comes to the animals, you rest your assertion on four words that do not have the meaning you place upon them.

 

First, it involves more then one verse but I did use  Gen. 1:24 as an example. So I have posited my general interpretation of those "four words", and still I await anyone to offer a "substantial" counter perspective.  Or perhaps you are suggesting that the "four words" are meaningless, especially if not in line with your view?

[LouF95]

 

 

 

That is a fair challenge but you are implying that Genesis, as 100% historical, is the default position and the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise.  I think we each have to prove our position.

 

 

You implied that the ancient Jews and prophets took Genesis as historical.  That doesn't prove historicity.  The ancient greeks believed there was a Mt. Olympus.  Does that make Mt. Olympus historical?  Would a trained historian accept your claim as proof.

 

You said Jesus mentioned Adam & Eve so Adam & Eve must have existed.  You need to prove 1) That Jesus took A&E as historical when He mentioned it.  I can mention Dick Tracy to make a point about detective work but I know Dick Tracy doesn't exist.  2)  That Jesus actually mentioned A&E.  To do that, you need to prove the bible as a 100% historical reliable text.  The gospel writer may have included Jesus in his parable.  He may have put the words in Jesus's mouth to give his writing more authority.  He may have misquoted Jesus.

 

For clarification, let me ask you.  Is Genesis 100% factual?  Is any segment allegorical, i.e. the talking snake, the tree A&E were supposed to say away from?

 

 

 

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?

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

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)

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357 - You need to believe the Bible instead weaving fairytales..

 

Actually, I believe the Bible and still you have no explanation for "Let the land, waters, etc.",  mediate creation is not  "my invention" but clearly in the text. That Creation was a supernatural event is not the question, rather the question is how?  I have offered an intellectually honest answer which you and others are incapable of addressing except for vague attempts to belittle. That is where we stand...........

You're the one with the explaining to do.  I don't have to explain your claim, a claim for which you have provided no evidence.  You are trying to pencil something that isn't there.  I don't have to explain what isn't there.   You have to explain why the passage says what it doesn't say.   The burden of proof is on you and until you prove your position, I don't have nothing intelligent to refute.

[Tolken]

Shiloh357 - The burden of proof is on you and until you prove your position, I don't have nothing intelligent to refute.

 

I offered sufficient proof by the plain reading of Genesis...where God commands the land/water/etc. to produce, obviously there is nothing to refute because that is exactly what the bible states. Mediate creation, as in God commanding the land/water...not trees, bushes, plants, fish, birds, or any animal but rather land, water, etc.

 

Again, explain your way around God's commands/fiats...I'm just relating what God's word says. My position is proven simply by posting the verses on the other hand obviously it is irrefutable as you and others can offer no reasoned response other than denial of God's word.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357 - The burden of proof is on you and until you prove your position, I don't have nothing intelligent to refute.

 

I offered sufficient proof by the plain reading of Genesis...where God commands the land/water/etc. to produce, obviously there is nothing to refute because that is exactly what the bible states. Mediate creation, as in God commanding the land/water...not trees, bushes, plants, fish, birds, or any animal but rather land, water, etc.

 

Again, explain your way around God's commands/fiats...I'm just relating what God's word says. My position is proven simply by posting the verses on the other hand obviously it is irrefutable as you and others can offer no reasoned response other than denial of God's word.

You claim that Genesis offers a "mediate" creation and you read that into Genesis.  You don't actually prove anything you say.  You just keep making the same false statements over and over and every attempt to get you  to offer up something other than your reading of the text has been rebuffed or ignored completely.  You are unwilling to bear the burden of proof that is yours based on your claims.  Your position isn't proven by the verses because they don't say anything or imply a mediate creation.

 

God is the agent of creation. He is not telling the earth to create.  God is doing the creating.  Evidently you are unwilling to accept that important truth.  You are perverting the Scriptures.

 

God speaks into existence all that is.  That isn't Evolution, its creation.

 

I am not trying to get around God's commandments.  Where does that come from.