A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your argument is spurious and sophomoric. 

It's just a fact, not an argument.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

There was not doctrine denying evolution either

And none supporting it.   Strangely, there were no doctrines denying or supporting atoms.   Or doctrines denying or supporting white blood cells.    This is not license to declare that the Bible or the Church opposed any of these things.   Do you understand why?

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

There isn't any doctrine regarding flying pink whales who breathe fire and poop windmills either, because nobody ever claimed there was.

Yes.    So for these things, the Church offered no guidance one way or another and we had to look to evidence.    You're starting to catch on.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Nobody denied the creation until false teachers began spreading the false religion of evolution. 

As you realized earlier, evolution is an observed phenomenon.   You confused the observed phenomenon of biological evolution with a consequence of evolution, common descent.   Notice that evolutionary theory didn't discover common descent; genetics did.    If God sent "adaption fairies" to poof new species from old ones, common descent would still be realized, even though evolution would not have happened.

You're angry at geneticists, not evolutionists.

And of course, YE creationism is a false religious belief, but evolution is a natural process we see going on in almost all living populations.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Note: you don't see a special condemnation of Islam either, because it also came later. 

And we don't see special condemnation of YE creationism for the same reason.

However, we were warned about false teachers.

 

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As you saw, St. Augustine plainly showed that they could not be so.   And no one thought to argue with him.

I wasn't there.  I WILL say it, though.  Augustine was wrong.  We don't know how many agreed with him because we don't have contemporaneous written publications.  However, with the Reformation, Martin Luther certainly disagreed.

 “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.”  source

Martin Luther died in 1546.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

He's the reason you're a YE creationist, unless you happen to be a Seventh-Day Adventist.

That's another direct lie. Not only did I come to the conclusion that the notion of long ages was contrary to the Bible because I read it, that same conclusion has been shared with the pastors and ministers of every church I have regularly attended.  Try your statement in most Baptist churches and see how many converts your get.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And you were shown that the text itself says the days couldn't be literal ones.   Why not just accept it God's way?

No, my Bible doesn't have 80% of the words cut out of it, as yours must have.  Apparently the references to the evening and morning aren't in yours.  You are misrepresenting the plain teaching of the Scriptures and using phrases out of context to promote your false teaching.  I've demonstrated that dozens of times.  

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Moses presented it; Morris and other YE creationists just revised it to make it more acceptable to them.  

More falsehoods.  The King James Bible was published in 1611.

[RV_Wizard]

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

Strangely, there were no doctrines denying or supporting atoms.   Or doctrines denying or supporting white blood cells.

Strangely, YOU are the one saying there wasn't doctrine disagreeing with false doctrines not mentioned until centuries later.  The Bible DOES say that life is in the blood, and that you should wash your hands under running water; even though we didn't know about germs for centuries.

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

As you realized earlier, evolution is an observed phenomenon.  

Adaptation is observed.  Molecules to man is not observed.  Dinosaurs into birds or rats into bats is not observed.  Citing basic adaptation to validate lies of original progenitors just shows the ultimate hypocrisy of evolution proponents.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

You should probably quote the scripture you reference if you plan to make a point about it.

Since I've cited it to you before, and I'm sure you at least occasionally read the Bible, I thought you'd know of it.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

The raquia appears early n Genesis 1. The NASB and ESV translate it as “the expanse.” Ye ol’ King James Bible calls it the “firmament.” However, perhaps a better translation is something like “sky dome.”

Here is Genesis 1:6-7:

“Then God said, “Let there be a raquia in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the raquia, and separated the waters that were below the raquia from the waters that were above the raquia; and it was so.”

Remember that in the ancient Hebrew imagination, the uncreated state was not nothing. It was a vast, chaotic sea. First, God made light. Then, he separated the sea vertically by means of the raquia so that some of the water was suspended above it and some was left down below.

Stepbible.com (a wonderful tool for exploring the nooks and crannies of the Bible) defines the word raquia as an “extended surface (solid)” and “the vault of heaven.” It lists two related words:

• to beat (raqa - רָקַע) “to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch”

• hammered out (riqqua - רִקּוּעַ) “expansion (of plates)”

So the raquia is a solid plane above the sky and the word is related to the words for hammering out metal. 

https://patternbible.substack.com/p/why-does-the-bible-say-the-sky-is

 

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

Strangely, YOU are the one saying there wasn't doctrine disagreeing with false doctrines not mentioned until centuries later. 

There are lots of things that can be either true or false, that are not supported or denied in the Bible.   The lack of support or denial for these things is not evidence that they are either true or false.   Doesn't seem that hard to understand.

2 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Bible DOES say that life is in the blood,

Life is in the brain and in the lungs and in every cell in the body.   The loss of any essential organ causes death.   There was a belief then, that persists in some today, that inheritance is in the blood.  Of course we know better now, but it made sense to ancient men.  

6 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

and that you should wash your hands under running water;

The weren't stupid.    They noticed that people who kept clean tended to be healthier.

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

even though we didn't know about germs for centuries.

Actually, contagion of disease was well-known, in spite of not knowing that it was by microorganisms.    Hence the rules on leprosy, for example.    Ancient people may have been ignorant of things we know, but they weren't stupid.

As you learned earlier, evolution is an observed phenomenon.

10 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Adaptation is observed. 

So is evolution.   I showed you the difference.   Do I need to show you again?
1. Getting a suntan is adaptation, but not evolution.

2. A new mutation that neither increases nor decreases chances of survival is evolution but not adaptation.

3. A mutation that increases the chance that an organism will live long enough to reproduce, is adaptation and evolution.

Maybe you should write it down this time.  And this too:
"Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population of living things."

13 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Molecules to man is not observed. 

A long time back we showed you that the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory.   Most of your hostility to science seems to be based on ignorance of what it is.

I don't think you're a hypocrite; I just think you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the false doctrines of YE creationism that you are unable to process anything that shows them to be false.

 

[The Barbarian]

22 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I wasn't there.  I WILL say it, though.  Augustine was wrong. 

And the Manicheans and gnostics agreed with you on that.   Doesn't matter.  

 

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

However, with the Reformation, Martin Luther certainly disagreed.

 “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.”  source

There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked]

So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth

Martin Luther[Josh. 10:12].²

Luther was a man of great courage and love of God.   But he had some faults.   One of them was confidence that he knew all sort of things, things that turned out to be wrong.

McCready is the reason you're a YE creationist, unless you happen to be a Seventh-Day Adventist.

30 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's another direct lie. Not only did I come to the conclusion that the notion of long ages was contrary to the Bible because I read it, that same conclusion has been shared with the pastors and ministers of every church I have regularly attended. 

And yet you're an orthodox Seventh-Day Adventist when it comes to the creation story in Genesis... 

31 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

 my Bible doesn't have 80% of the words cut out of it

It's the stuff you inserted between the lines that's turning you from His words.   Creationists pretend to take the Bible as it is, but then insert their own understanding into it and insist those are God's word.

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

You have the final misinterpretation of what God said, it seems.  I wonder if you understand that Creationism is the belief in what God said about his creation?   

YE creationism is the belief in what an Adventist "Prophetess" said about God's creation.

 

[Sparks]

37 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Since I've cited it to you before, and I'm sure you at least occasionally read the Bible, I thought you'd know of it.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

The raquia appears early n Genesis 1. The NASB and ESV translate it as “the expanse.” Ye ol’ King James Bible calls it the “firmament.” However, perhaps a better translation is something like “sky dome.”

Here is Genesis 1:6-7:

“Then God said, “Let there be a raquia in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the raquia, and separated the waters that were below the raquia from the waters that were above the raquia; and it was so.”

Remember that in the ancient Hebrew imagination, the uncreated state was not nothing. It was a vast, chaotic sea. First, God made light. Then, he separated the sea vertically by means of the raquia so that some of the water was suspended above it and some was left down below.

Stepbible.com (a wonderful tool for exploring the nooks and crannies of the Bible) defines the word raquia as an “extended surface (solid)” and “the vault of heaven.” It lists two related words:

• to beat (raqa - רָקַע) “to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch”

• hammered out (riqqua - רִקּוּעַ) “expansion (of plates)”

So the raquia is a solid plane above the sky and the word is related to the words for hammering out metal. 

https://patternbible.substack.com/p/why-does-the-bible-say-the-sky-is

I see, so you are not quoting scripture, you are misinterpreting it.  Thanks. I understand why you misunderstand now. 

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

YE creationism is the belief in what an Adventist "Prophetess" said about God's creation.

The dictionary might help: 

Creationism - Belief in the supernatural origin of the universe or of humans and other living things, especially as based on the literal interpretation of the account of the creation related in the Bible.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I see, so you are not quoting scripture, you are misinterpreting it.  Thanks. I understand why you misunderstand now.

I'm just showing you that scripture says the sky has windows through which rain falls.

No point in denial.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

YE creationism is the belief in what an Adventist "Prophetess" said about God's creation.

 

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

The dictionary might help: 

Creationism - Belief in the supernatural origin of the universe or of humans and other living things, especially as based on the literal interpretation of the account of the creation related in the Bible.

Actually, you didn't provide a definition for YE creationism.   The Adventist invention of YE creationism is far more than merely revising the Genesis creation story to be entirely literal.

That definition would fit the thinking of evolutionary creationists like Darwin.   Notice the definition mentions the confusion of creationism with YE creationism.

 

Edited February 5 by The Barbarian

[The_Patriot21]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's contrary to some modernist revisions of the Bible.   But that's quite a different thing.

Indeed, but those modernist revisions arnt based upon the original Hebrew but instead are changed in an attempt to make modern day science work with the Bible.

The problem is, the modern day science is a lie, and when you attempt to change the Bible to make it fit, your adding a lie into the Bible. A lie on top of a lie is never a good thing.