Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Yes, let's take a look:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:11

Remember that erets word Brabrie wants to mean anything but what it usually means? It's in there.

:mock: :blabla: berryan

Written for the illiterate Bronze age sheep herder. Doesn't work today in the age of common sense.
 

noguru

Well-known member
I see Stripe still has not provided the model he believes explains this from his "literalist" view of scripture. I am not surprised that he has moved on to criticizing others for tangential issues, rather than honestly and courageously providing his clear model and explanation. This is his MO.
 

6days

New member
Hello again 6days.

I believe you have before insisted that the original 4 canonical gospels are inspired writings that reflect exactly what God wanted the authors to scribble down. If that's so, and the gospels today are still accurate, why do the gospels have factual discrepancies? I'll use the supposed discoverer(s) of Jesus' empty tomb as an example:

In Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James, and a number of women followers of Jesus who had accompanied him from Galilee
In John: Mary Magdalene and Simon Peter for certain, perhaps with other women
In Matthew: Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James
Mark: The two Marys and Salome

Human authors presenting their own account of this event would be expected to produce minor differences in content such as this. But if God was playing puppet-master and the gospel authors were just writing down what they were inspired to write then no such error should ever occur.
There is no discrepancy there.

This thread seems to have lost its subject entirely
Yes... Start a new thread on inerrancy and discrepancies.
And... Hi to you too Kdall :)
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The Hebrew word eretz can mean ... the whole earth.
We know. :up:

Wake us up when you've got a point to make.

(Stipe claims that if the Bible mentions an allegory, that makes it literal history)Show us that one, Stipe. What's your evidence for that? You've just inserted your own meanings, and have declared them to be God's word.The one thing it is never used for in the Bible is "the whole world."It means "my land", "hereabouts", "specific nation", "as far as the eye can see", and other things. But not "whole world." The word refers to Israel. And to Egypt. And to various other specific places.But nothing about a global meaning.
Nope. The Bible says the entire planet as well as the heavens were made in six days.

You wanted to have a look; now you're running for the hills. :dog:
 

Ben Masada

New member
Creation is related to the beginning when the universe was caused to exist. Evolution is related to the expansion of the universe. When Einstein was working on a formula about the expansion of the universe, he was asked if he believed in God and his answer was that all his life was trying to catch up with God at His work of Creation. That's from his book, "Out of My Latter Years."
 

6days

New member
When using the term "God's Word", are you meaning the Biblical text? If so, do you attribute (apparently minor) differences between translations to be due to fallibility of the translators?
Kudos to you for phrasing that fairly...as opposed to saying there is contradictions.
God's Word is our Bibles...acknowledging that translations are not perfect; and, acknowledging that there are minor copying errors (Mostly spelling mistakes) in the ancient manuscripts.
However, there is no copying error, or translation difference that effects doctrine
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
We know. :up:

Wake us up when you've got a point to make.


Nope. The Bible says the entire planet as well as the heavens were made in six days.

This part here that was the only boldened text in my post:

"Only a few percent of the occurrences of the word [eretz] relate to the whole earth / planet. It refers most frequently to the land of Israel, or the whole territory from the Nile to the Euphrates that had been promised to Abraham."
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
Kudos to you for phrasing that fairly...as opposed to saying there is contradictions.
God's Word is our Bibles...acknowledging that translations are not perfect; and, acknowledging that there are minor copying errors (Mostly spelling mistakes) in the ancient manuscripts.


However, there is no copying error, or translation difference that effects doctrine

The last part here is correct. I'm just wondering how differences between gospels came about if, as you say, God basically directed their writing
 

6days

New member
"Only a few percent of the occurrences of the word [eretz] relate to the whole earth / planet. It refers most frequently to the land of Israel, or the whole territory from the Nile to the Euphrates that had been promised to Abraham."
And understood by the context.
 

6days

New member
The last part here is correct. I'm just wondering how differences between gospels came about if, as you say, God basically directed their writing

Of course there are different perspectives from different 'reporters'...But, there are no discrepancies.
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
Of course there are different perspectives from different 'reporters'...But, there are no discrepancies.

I'll let the entire community of university professors and scholars that have devoted their life's work to explaining and finding reasons for these gospel discrepancies that they don't know what they're talking about for you
 

noguru

Well-known member
I'll let the entire community of university professors and scholars that have devoted their life's work to explaining and finding reasons for these gospel discrepancies that they don't know what they're talking about for you

:chuckle:

Yes, many of the fundies on this site are convinced that any person who is more well versed than them on a subject but does not agree must not know what they are talking about.

(Edit: changed "that" to "what" - per Patrick Jane)
 
Last edited:

DavisBJ

New member
“ … We read the Bible not only through the mask of translation, but with a great distance from the minds of those who originally read and spoke the words. Eretz would have been understood by the original Bible writers and readers / hearers as a reference to eretz Israel, just as it is understood by a Jew today. The English translations aren’t helpful. They tend to mix the translations hopelessly between “country”, “land” and “earth”. Other Hebrew words are translated “world”; these are the words which more commonly refer to the whole planet."

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/ld/d3.htm

I take you it you consider whoever wrote the commentary you posted above (under the banner of CareLinks Ministries) had a mastery of ancient languages superior to that of the scholars who were selected and commissioned to study and actually do the translations of the ancient manuscripts, and who ended up producing “English translations [that] aren’t helpful … [and] tend to mix the translations hopelessly…” Simply stated, it sounds like Alethia College considers the actual translators of the English Bibles as being incompetent, at least on the correct use of “eretz”.
 

6days

New member
I'll let the entire community of university professors and scholars that have devoted their life's work to explaining and finding reasons for these gospel discrepancies that they don't know what they're talking about for you
Ok... Great!
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
The last part here is correct. I'm just wondering how differences between gospels came about if, as you say, God basically directed their writing
Because everyone sees a different facet of God. We each see Him from our own perspective. The harmony of The Gospels is proof of their authentic authorship. There are way more proofs than just that, though. One proof is the self-deprecation, unheard of in the time. The writers willingly exposed their greatest flaws. Had they been writing fiction, they would have expounded their own character with glowing superlatives. All 44 authors of all 66 books ended up giving his life to bring these Words to us. There has not yet been one single historic fact stated in The Holy Scriptures proven wrong. There is NO other historic document with that kind of record. It is not only the greatest record of history in antiquity but also the ONLY record for a LOT of our ancient history. Most of the rest are fiction, created by those who had either read or heard the stories of Scripture from others.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear Aimiel,

Hey Buddy!! It's been awhile. I didn't know most of what you said, and am glad for the facts you've presented. The Bible is not fiction. I love all you've had to say regarding this. 44 authors? 66 books? Cool! Yes, it is the greatest history book of all time, I believe.

Your Good Friend, Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top