Questions for evolution believers

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You completely reversed the meaning of the scripture you quote-mined.  

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.  It's a way of lying.  A very good example of this would be saying that the earth brought forth living things through evolution over millions of years when the original quote clearly stated that God created the life and it was done in a single day.

That's what you do every time you quote phrases of Scripture out of context to try and make it sound like your claims have some validity when, in fact, they have none whatever.

Referencing is something that refers a reader or consulter to another source of information (such as a book or passage).  Referencing is something a person may do when they have already quoted the source dozens of times.  

[FreeGrace]

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

The literal Hebrew can be looked up by googling it on your computer.  This is how it goes:  on the day that you eat of it, dying, you shall die.

IN, not ON.  Satan knew death would be certain but not immediate.  Now you and your colleague are both quoting Satan against the Scriptures.  Why do you think that is?

I think (know) that you have a comprehension issue.  Since I consult scholars when necessary, I examined all 32 translations on biblehub.com to how they translated.

"when" 4x, "if" 3x, "on" 4x, "in whatsoever day" 2x, "when" 4x, "during the day" 1x.  

So, 56% of all translations on biblehub.com render it DIFFERENTLY than "in".

So, unless you can prove there is a difference between "in" and "on", you have no point.

What is clear, when comparing all translations, is the FACT that WHEN or ON THAT DAY, or IF they ate of the fruit, they would die.  So a specific day was clearly in mind.

Why do you resist the obvious fact that they died spiritually when, if, or in or on the day they ate?

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Revelation 21: 4-5 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

What is your point here?  We're talking about the earth becoming a mess.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Revelation 22:3-5 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Only the saved.  The unsaved will be gone.

Oh, got it.  You are answering my question.  However, you are incorrect.  The Bible teaches in 3 different verses that there will be a resurrection of the saved and a resurrection of the unsaved.  Dan 12:2, John 5:29 and Acts 24:15.  

Then, in 1 Cor 15:23 we learn that "when He comes", a reference to the Second Advent, "those who belong to Him" will receive their resurrection bodies.  That means ALL the saved will receive their resurrection bodies at the Second Advent.

So, when do the unsaved get resurrected back into their mortal bodies (not glorified)?  We learn of that in Rev 20:4-6.

4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

Since 1 Cor 15:23 is clear that all the saved are resurrected "when He comes", and Rev 20:4 indicates the martyred "come to life" and reign with Christ, v.5 refers to all unbelievers.  Their resurrection will be AFTER the Millennial Reign of Christ, in order to appear before the GWT judgment.  And then thrown into the LOF.

You're welcome.

[The Barbarian]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint

Which is what you did.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It's a way of lying.

Yep.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

A very good example of this would be saying that the earth brought forth living things through evolution over millions of years

Evolution is not about the origin of life.   But as your fellow YE creationists admit, there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", "gobs and gobs of it."   You already know this. 

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why do you resist the obvious fact that they died spiritually when, if, or in or on the day they ate?

Because you are using the same argument Satan used when he got Eve to sin.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

 However, you are incorrect.  The Bible teaches in 3 different verses that there will be a resurrection of the saved and a resurrection of the unsaved.

There will be that, but I refer to a different time.  I refer to the Millennial reign of Christ.

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Evolution is not about the origin of life. 

It is your testimony that the earth brought forth living things through evolution over millions of years.  In defense of that claim you constantly quote mine the Bible; deliberately taking words out of context and ignoring the completed verses, then saying your false teaching is the way the Lord actually did it.

One could see the wonders of biology and how our bodies can adapt without rejecting core Scriptural doctrine.  Properly understood, nothing that is KNOWN about science is in any way in discord with the Bible.  However, when science teachers contradict the written word of God, the teachers are wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why do you resist the obvious fact that they died spiritually when, if, or in or on the day they ate?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Because you are using the same argument Satan used when he got Eve to sin.

Rather, you are using the same argument the serpent used.   Like you, the serpent is a Biblical literalist.    He interpreted "die in the day" to mean a physical death, which he knew would not happen.   He ignored God's actual meaning that Adam would die spiritually that day.    The serpent deceived Eve by telling her part of the truth and concealing other parts of it.

Evolution is not about the origin of life.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It is your testimony that the earth brought forth living things

That's God's testimony.  You should believe Him.   As you learned earlier, the origin of life is not part of evolution.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

through evolution over millions of years.

Evolution is only the way that populations change over time, not how life came to be.   I realize that your new doctrines fall apart when this is realized, but your wishes don't change the truth.   You need to promote this falsehood to make your story plausible.

In defense of that story you constantly quote mine the Bible; deliberately taking words out of context and ignoring the completed verses, then saying your false teaching is evolutionary theory.

We all noticed.

 

[RV_Wizard]

56 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

you are using the same argument the serpent used.   Like you, the serpent is a Biblical literalist.

That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever read.  First of all, there were no Bibles then.  Secondly, serpents are not generally know for their vocal skills and reading cognition.  Third, anyone with the understanding of a child knows that it was Satan speaking through the serpent.  Satan used the same line you use; that Adam and Eve wouldn't die the very day they ate.  However, he knew that God meant if they sinned the consequence would be death.  Since they were needed to populate the earth, the sentence was deferred.  However, the planet was cursed from that moment.

You might argue the the animals weren't part of the curse, but they were; especially the serpent.  The serpent had to crawl on its belly for its entire life.  Whether it had legs or wings before, it doesn't say.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

That's God's testimony.

That's your lie. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. So all the animals that live on the land were created by God on the sixth day of creation.  Man's only ancestor was dirt.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

I realize that your new doctrines

Repeatedly lying about something doesn't make it true.   There is absolutely nothing new about the book of Genesis as recorded in the King James Bible.  The only new doctrine is the heresy you perpetrate with every post.

[The Barbarian]

you are using the same argument the serpent used.   Like you, the serpent is a Biblical literalist.

49 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever read. 

I don't think you're stupid; you're just so indoctrinated, you can't see that the serpent has it wrong.

49 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Secondly, serpents are not generally know for their vocal skills and reading cognition. 

And yet this one talked very well.   He's pretty slick, too.   He mixes the truth with lies to sell his deception.   For example, he correctly tells Eve that they will be like God if they eat from the tree.

49 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Satan used the same line you use; that Adam and Eve wouldn't die the very day they ate.  However, he knew that God meant if they sinned the consequence would be death. 

The very day in which the would eat, according to God.   This is how we know the death was not a physical death.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

It is your testimony that the earth brought forth living things

That's God's testimony.

49 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's your lie.

Well, let's see what God says...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

I believe God.   You should, too.

49 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Repeatedly lying about something doesn't make it true. 

I don't think you're lying.    You're so indoctrinated into man's revisions of the Bible that you can't bring yourself to believe what it says.

 

Edited March 6 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And yet this one talked very well.   He's pretty slick, too.

Satan is a very cunning liar.  Look how he has deceived so many with the lie of evolution.

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The very day in which the would eat, according to God.

Same lie, different telling.  He said "You will surely die."  Surely doesn't mean immediately.  Satan said they would not die immediately.  He didn't say they wouldn't die surely.

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Genesis 1:26 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Thank you for demonstrating the same dishonesty I referenced earlier.  You use this verse out of context to validate your lie that all things evolved over time.  You ignore that fact that God made all on day six of creation.  This is the very definition of quote mining.  

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  FreeGrace said: 

Why do you resist the obvious fact that they died spiritually when, if, or in or on the day they ate?

Because you are using the same argument Satan used when he got Eve to sin.

You are very confused.  I'm explaining WHAT happened when they ate the fruit.  They din't die physically, but they DID die spiritually.  

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It is your testimony that the earth brought forth living things through evolution over millions of years.

No, it is NOT that.  Where do you think I said anything like that nonsense?  I acknowledged that v.1 says that God created the heavens and earth.  I acknowledged aht v.2 says "but the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.  There's no evolution in that.  

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  In defense of that claim you constantly quote mine the Bible; deliberately taking words out of context and ignoring the completed verses, then saying your false teaching is the way the Lord actually did it.

Still confused.  I proved from Scripture what "tohu wabohu" means elsewhere in the Bible.  4 English translations render the words "wasteland and void" and the English translation of the LXX renders them "unsightly and unfurnished".  How can that be referring to construction?  And ALL 32 English translations available on biblehub.com render 'tohu wabohu" as "waste/chaos/desolation/etc".  Again, the 2 words refer to DESTRUCTION and not CONSTRUCTION.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

One could see the wonders of biology and how our bodies can adapt without rejecting core Scriptural doctrine.

Earth age isn't a doctrine.  It's a simple FACT.  And Gen 1:2 clearly says that the earth became a mess.  So God restored it before He created and placed man on it.

There is nothing about these facts that have any effect on ANY part of Scripture.

So why are all the YEC types so scared of a very old earth.  There is no reason.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Properly understood, nothing that is KNOWN about science is in any way in discord with the Bible.  However, when science teachers contradict the written word of God, the teachers are wrong.

I've shown what the "written word of God" means by showing how the 2 words are used elsewhere in the Bible.  The words CANNOT be used for CONSTRUCTION (creation).  Only for DESTRUCTION.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Same lie, different telling.  He said "You will surely die." 

Well, let's see what God said:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

I believe God.   You should, too.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Genesis 1:26 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Yes we all see that you are willing to accept that God made living things.   The point is that you don't approve of the way He did it.   And that's what keeps you denying His word.