He seems to be quite more knowledgeable in how to be a great Christian, compared to you, nog. What do you make of that?? Go back to Sunday School. Have someone Take You To Church!!
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
He seems to be quite more knowledgeable in how to be a great Christian, compared to you, nog. What do you make of that?? Go back to Sunday School. Have someone Take You To Church!!
remember that movie "Cybil" - (about a lady with split-personalities) ? in the movie, her socks were always dirty -atrol:
Dear patrick jane,
I don't remember watching the movie, but I did hear of it. I think Sally Field was the lead character (Cybil) and she did a great acting job of it. I think that talking with noguru about it is like talking to a wall. A non-Christian wall.
Michael
Dear DavisBJ,
Wow, it's been awhile!! How are you doing these days?? Good to hear from you! I see that you are an atheist still. Why are you trying to help us? It's quite commendable, to be honest. Thanks so very much, BJ!!
Tell me how you've been doing? My life has been doing fine!! It's awesome, BJ!! The Lord told me that, before the end of this year, we will know that Armageddon has come and is happening to us, and that Jesus is returning and He may very well return before the end of this year. Wouldn't that be wonderful?!! I asked Him if I could tell others and He said OK. That's so cool, because I sometimes have trouble keeping secrets. There are a couple things though that I haven't told any man or woman. They are secrets that I am not suppose to reveal to any brethren. I wish I could. Hey, you take good care of yourself and live life the best you can. Make It Count!!
God Bless Your Heart And Soul,
Michael
Wow, it's been awhile!! How are you doing these days?? Good to hear from you! I see that you are an atheist still. Why are you trying to help us? It's quite commendable, to be honest. Thanks so very much, BJ!!
Tell me how you've been doing? My life has been doing fine!! It's awesome, BJ!! The Lord told me that, before the end of this year, we will know that Armageddon has come and is happening to us, and that Jesus is returning and He may very well return before the end of this year. Wouldn't that be wonderful?!! I asked Him if I could tell others and He said OK. That's so cool, because I sometimes have trouble keeping secrets. There are a couple things though that I haven't told any man or woman. They are secrets that I am not suppose to reveal to any brethren. I wish I could. Hey, you take good care of yourself and live life the best you can. Make It Count!!
God Bless Your Heart And Soul,
Michael
Hi, Stripe. I will pass over most of your put-down, since such is almost a knee-jerk reaction we expect from you. But that leaves me with zilch as far as you actually addressing what I said. In contrast, specifically I was alluding to a thread titled "The Sun Stood Still" that Bob B initiated on March 1, 2005. It has some interesting posts in the first 100 or so posts, but in the posts beyond 120 or so is when the weaknesses of Bob B's proposal are quite clearly identified.
Based on a number of prior exchanges with you, I see little to be gained by everyone repetitively asking you for the specifics on the mysterious solution you allude to back in post 8255. I think I understand some of the ideas underlying the relative motion of cosmic bodies (as do some other thread readers). But you gain a lot more mileage out of pretending that you have the magical answer, than having the courage to simply present it in detail and see if stands up to scrutiny.
I actually have more respect for people who unabashedly attribute Biblical miracles to God temporarily suspending natural laws, as you seem to do in both the case of Lazarus and the case of the sun standing still. (Not saying I believe such explanations, since when one uses black magic as an explanation, every purported miracle in every religion can be explained.) I am more interested in looking in detail at explanations that are proffered that supposedly conform with natural law.
Nope. You made a characterization of Bob B that he refuted in the thread from 2006 and would do so now if he were around.
What did you say? :idunno:
Nope.
You did not spend any time addressing what he proposed.
I didn't allude to a solution. I find it insane that people like you cannot admit that the Earth does not have to stop spinning to keep the sun in view for more than 12 hours.
I don't have a detailed answer that I want to put up for scrutiny. If I did, I would present it. And, as you know well, my descriptions of physical processes stand up against your attempts to deride them.
The point here is, none of you are willing to address the issue sensibly, preferring to attack straw men.
No, I was just pointing out that what you said diverges from the Biblical account. Since you are resistant to admit that, let me use your own exact words that you made in replying to Noguru asking for a "model for how the sun appeared to stand still in the sky for 24 hours...". instead of standing solidly behind the Biblical text, you offered two alternatives: 1) "the human eye and perception are easily fooled", and 2) "things may be different than they appear." Neither of these ideas are expressed in the Old Testament passage about the sun standing still, and you introduced them, not me.
What happened is that all 19 translations I checked agreed in saying the sun stood still. That too hard to understand?
That's really weird, cause here is exactly what Noguru said that you were responding to:
Do you often lose track of the very idea you are responding to, like you did here?
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I see no need to elevate the inductive methods of scientific inquiry that yield but working hypotheses inquiry as normative above the norming norm of divine, infallible Scripture.
Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. It did—upon command. The miracle here is twofold, the sun standing still and doing so upon command.
Attempting to deconstruct what is not spoken to in Scripture is but speculation, and generally unwarranted (Deut. 29:29). A miracle is what is described on the topic and the faithful should have no problem accepting that God who created all that exists by fiat is quite capable of pulling it off, whether working within means of His natural laws or without said means. It is error to simply assume we can explain away all of God's miracles. Now that does not mean we cannot explore events described in Scripture that could have happened within means, as in seven good years and seven bad years, that perhaps have some science to explain how God worked within these means. I am quite confident of Scripture's truth in all matters of faith, science, and life, so we should not fear the camel's nose on matters of science done rightly, as long as we hold fast to a proper view of Scripture.
AMR
Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. It did—upon command. The miracle here is twofold, the sun standing still and doing so upon command.
Attempting to deconstruct what is not spoken to in Scripture is but speculation, and generally unwarranted (Deut. 29:29). A miracle is what is described on the topic and the faithful should have no problem accepting that God who created all that exists by fiat is quite capable of pulling it off, whether working within means of His natural laws or without said means. It is error to simply assume we can explain away all of God's miracles. Now that does not mean we cannot explore events described in Scripture that could have happened within means, as in seven good years and seven bad years, that perhaps have some science to explain how God worked within these means. I am quite confident of Scripture's truth in all matters of faith, science, and life, so we should not fear the camel's nose on matters of science done rightly, as long as we hold fast to a proper view of Scripture.
AMR
Dear DavisBJ,
Aren't you gonna say Hi?!! How have things been? I see no reason to think that God could not do such a thing. He's my God, for one, and He can do anything, for another. I don't have to know how He did everything, but if He says He did it, then I have enough faith to believe Him. I hope they thanked Him tons for doing the miracle that He did back then, because that is quite a difficult thing to do for the sake of Joshua and Israel. Well, BJ, what do you think of the miracle? Isn't it uncanny indeed?
So what's been happening? It's your turn!!
Many Blessings For You!
Michael
Aren't you gonna say Hi?!! How have things been? I see no reason to think that God could not do such a thing. He's my God, for one, and He can do anything, for another. I don't have to know how He did everything, but if He says He did it, then I have enough faith to believe Him. I hope they thanked Him tons for doing the miracle that He did back then, because that is quite a difficult thing to do for the sake of Joshua and Israel. Well, BJ, what do you think of the miracle? Isn't it uncanny indeed?
So what's been happening? It's your turn!!
Many Blessings For You!
Michael
Can you provide a link to whatever thread from 2006 you are thinking of?
I didn’t say I did. All I said was his explanation for how the sun stood still was shown to be fallacious.
I have not seen a single person say the earth has to stop spinning to keep the sun in view for more than 12 hours. I have lived in Alaska, so I am well aware of summers with long days and short nights. But is that all you think the Biblical text says – more than 12 hours? Several of the translations say things like: “sun stopped in the middle of the sky”, “sun stood still”, “sun stood in place in the middle of the sky”, and “sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky”. Are you saying it would have been more accurate for the text to simply say the sun stayed up, and not used terms like “motionless”, ‘still”, and “middle of the sky”?
If you have an explanation, remember the moon must stop too, the sun must not set for “about a whole day”, and this must happen at the latitude that the battle occurred at.
:idunno:
The description is brief. I doubt there is any good reason to believe that according to the account the sun and moon were frozen in place relative to the Earth.
Stipe doubts a literal interpretation of Scripture:
Well, let's take a look...
Joshua 10:12 Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. [13] And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.
Interesting that the geocentric theory is represented here. In reality, if the Sun appears to stop in the sky, the moon would as well. (actually the apparent movement would greatly slow down) If the celestial bodies on mounted on crystal spheres rotating the Earth, then the idea makes more sense. If the motion is mostly due to the Earth's rotation, then this makes no sense at all.
It's a cautionary tale about trying to make the Bible an infallible science text.
Clearly, Stipe is a literalist when it gives him the answers he wants, and only then.
Well, let's take a look...
Joshua 10:12 Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. [13] And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.
Interesting that the geocentric theory is represented here. In reality, if the Sun appears to stop in the sky, the moon would as well. (actually the apparent movement would greatly slow down) If the celestial bodies on mounted on crystal spheres rotating the Earth, then the idea makes more sense. If the motion is mostly due to the Earth's rotation, then this makes no sense at all.
It's a cautionary tale about trying to make the Bible an infallible science text.
Clearly, Stipe is a literalist when it gives him the answers he wants, and only then.
6days
New member
That is a dishonest strawman statement... Stripe and others have repeatedly told you the Bible is not a science text, (However, some parts of the Bible are a history text). And God's Word is always inerrant.
Hello again 6days.
If we assume that God directly dictated at least a few of the books in the Bible to authors, then originally yes I suppose the text would be inerrant. That's a bold, completely unquantifiable claim, but even with accepting that to be true you run into the problem of contradictory statements popping up throughout.
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.
So saying the Bible is inerrant is an oxymoron of sorts in that the Bible itself has differing accounts of the same events. Somebody was right and somebody wasn't. That's not very inerrant.
This thread seems to have lost its subject entirely
noguru
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Michael I have explained my take to you folks many times. But you don't listen. Your static and dogmatic view of a theological text stops you from seeing other possibilities.
What do you when people don't listen?
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
Exodus 20:11
Remember that erets word Brabrie wants to mean anything but what it usually means? It's in there.
:mock: :blabla: berryan
noguru
Well-known member
How can something be an accurate historical account but not scientifically accurate, if history includes scientific aspects? You are completely illogical with your statement here.
In the field of epistemology there are four levels of possibility. The first and loosest level is logical. Then after that we have physical possibility. Then biological possibility. And the last most stringent level is historical possibility. Any claim regarding history (which by default includes science) must pass the muster of this last historical possibility.
So what is it? Are you trying to convince us through your view of scripture that we should rely on supernatural miracles, or are you trying to explain this event using logic and reason? Please make up your mind.
Please go sell your rubbish somewhere else. Oh wait, this site was designed to sell rubbish. Which is why Stripe is viewed as a hero by the powers that be on this site.
Carry on.
:chuckle:
You should read something bro
"The Hebrew word eretz can mean:
- the dust of the earth
- a region
- the whole earth
- the land of Israel, or that promised to Abraham
Only a few percent of the occurrences of the word 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. Statistically, the chances are that whenever we encounter eretz, this is what it refers to. 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
Hi. OK. I don't. No. Not much.
(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.
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.
- Status