Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[Stripe]

Friend, I'm trying to show you this has all happened before and when science said something else, after a while a lot of scriptures magically became figurative that had been literal and "plain" before.

No, they didn't.

It was the evolutionists of the day who insisted that the Earth was the center of the solar system, when the Bible said nothing to the contrary, and it was men who endorsed what the Bible does teach who were prepared to stand up to the "settled science" and say otherwise.

It didn't kill the Christian faith then, there's no reason it will now.

Since when has this been about faith? We are interested in science.

Either way, the facts are in: The Bible very clearly says the entire universe was created in "six days" and the data support that idea.

 

[Wick Stick]

"Six days."

Until you can deliver good reason why it cannot mean what it plainly says, everything you say is fluff.

It does say that in Exodus, and it does plainly mean that.

On the other hand, do you really want to base your interpretation on a single verse that occurs in a different book than the original story?

How about when that other book shows signs of redaction, and the verse in question begins with a keyword which often indicates a gloss in the text? That's the case here.

Do a quick search for "six days" in the Bible. There are dozens of verses pertaining to the workweek, and only 1 about creation.

Next question - is that 1 verse really about creation? Set in the middle of a passage that is all about establishing law, it sticks out as a little aside, a blurb providing a short off-topic explanation of the greater point. The greater point is that the workweek is established at "six days."

I'm happy to admit that you have some ground to stand on with your position. It's just a very small piece of ground, and happens to be the one irregular piece of ground that doesn't match the vast expanse of landscape all around it.

You can stay focused on balancing on your one little verse, or you can navigate the whole text of scripture in context.

Jarrod

 

[Stripe]

It does say that in Exodus, and it does plainly mean that.

On the other hand, do you really want to base your interpretation on a single verse that occurs in a different book than the original story?

How about when that other book shows signs of redaction, and the verse in question begins with a keyword which often indicates a gloss in the text? That's the case here.

Do a quick search for "six days" in the Bible. There are dozens of verses pertaining to the [working week], and only 1 about creation.

Next question - is that 1 verse really about creation? Set in the middle of a passage that is all about establishing law, it sticks out as a little aside, a blurb providing a short off-topic explanation of the greater point. The greater point is that the workweek is established at "six days."

I'm happy to admit that you have some ground to stand on with your position. It's just a very small piece of ground, and happens to be the one irregular piece of ground that doesn't match the vast expanse of landscape all around it.

You can stay focused on balancing on your one little verse, or you can navigate the whole text of scripture in context.

Jarrod

So your argument that it cannot mean "six day" does not exist.

Thought not.

 

[Wick Stick]

Where did I make that argument?

Maybe you want to deal with what I said, instead? Yeah... thought not.

 

[Stripe]

Where did I make that argument?

Where did you make what argument?

You agree that Exodus plainly says and means "six days." It's difficult to see how you could come from there to convince someone that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

The Bible directly eliminates evolutionism as a possible partner.

 

[6days]

It does say that in Exodus, and it does plainly mean that.

On the other hand, do you really want to base your interpretation on a single verse that occurs in a different book than the original story?

If it plainly means that ..... then that is the end of the argument. Or, do you think God contradicts Himself throughout scripture?

From the Hebrew language.... and from other scripture it is clear that God created in six 24 hour days.

 

[Alate_One]

Not sure who Lamoureux is, or the connection to Biologos?

Lamoureux wrote the book "I love Jesus and I Accept Evolution."

He has a PhD in biology, theology and dentistry.

His book is a very worthwhile read. But I linked you to his lectures, since he has a university position in Canada that is all about religion and science. (I also had the pleasure of meeting him.) And most of his positions are similar to those of Biologos.

Biologos claims the Bible is wrong
“Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine "

It is fine because the Bible isn't a science textbook.

Jesus said the Mustard seed was the smallest seed. That is wrong from a scientific perspective. But that wasn't the point of the illustration. To make a good illustration, you need to use language and things that people are familiar with.

Much of the Bible is written from a pre-scientific perspective. And that's fine. We were all like that until only the last two hundred years or so. So having the Bible use scientific language that was beyond the people it was written to would make no sense.

It's only we moderns that really have issues with the Bible because we want it to be something it isn't.

Christian doctrine hinges on our understanding of the creation account. The doctrine of sin, death, salvation, impunity and more are founded in Genesis.
Because Biologos rejects the six day creation account, they then reject the inerrancy of scripture...reject doctrine of impunity.... compromise on other doctrines all resulting in a ineffectual gospel.

Nope, only in YEC land. Next question?

 

[6days]

Biologos claims the Bible is wrong
“Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine "

It is fine because the Bible isn't a science textbook.

It is fine with you if God's Word is wrong?
So you judge God's Word determining when He is correct...and when He is wrong?

Jesus said the Mustard seed was the smallest seed. That is wrong from a scientific perspective

Really? So either the Creator was mistaken..... or you are mot understanding correctly?
If one of you is mistaken..... guess who?
Possible solution...
Was Jesus talking about the mustard seed being the smallest of all the seeds in the world? No, He said "sown in a field". The mustard seed likely was the smallest seed Palestinian farmers planted.

Christian doctrine hinges on our understanding of the creation account. The doctrine of sin, death, salvation, impunity and more are founded in Genesis.
Because Biologos rejects the six day creation account, they then reject the inerrancy of scripture...reject doctrine of impunity.... compromise on other doctrines all resulting in a ineffectual gospel.

Nope, only in YEC land. Next question?

There was no question Alate. Biologos promotes a compromised, and often heretical view of scripture.

Even atheists are amused the way Biologos does mental gymnastics.....or, twist like a pretzel in how they compromise.


An atheist on Jerry Coynes website sums up the illogical stance of Biologos. "Thus BioLogos has no actual principle to stand on when they oppose a literal reading of Genesis but support a literal reading of a story of a virgin birth."
Someone else makes the comment
"… Do you ever get tired of tying yourself into a pretzel trying to ignore obvious logical implications, and to keep others from noting them?"https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...h-the-fundies/

Atheists are mocking Biologos for is their inconsistancy. Both the creation and the ressurection are told as historical accounts. Both have symbolism and theological implications.

Atheists note the inconsistancy of Biologos without even understanding how the Biologos position is inconsistent with the Gospel. If first Adam is only allegorical then the the Last Adams physical death was unnecessary.

Pethaps the heresy and faith destroying belief system of Biologos is best exposed in the words of their frequent contributor Karl Gilberson. "It (evolutionism) etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to these stories—the fall, ‘Christ as second Adam’, the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred."
From Gilbersons (heretical) book Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution

 

[gcthomas]

Was Jesus talking about the mustard seed being the smallest of all the seeds in the world? No, He said "sown in a field". The mustard seed likely was the smallest seed Palestinian farmers planted.

So when the Bible plainly says "smallest of all the seeds", you have to interpret it to make it fit with what is now known? The Bible doesn't really mean what it plainly says?

Hmmm.

 

[6days]

So when the Bible plainly says "smallest of all the seeds", you have to interpret it to make it fit with what is now known? The Bible doesn't really mean what it plainly says?
Hmmm.

As always GC..... context....context....context.

 

[gcthomas]

As always GC..... context....context....context.

But you reject contextual interpretation in other passages. Why is that, I wonder?

 

[Stripe]

But you reject contextual interpretation in other passages.

Nope. The Bible says "six days." The context does not negate the plain meaning.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. The Bible says "six days." The context does not negate the plain meaning.

6Days says context can negate plain meaning in other passages. Do you disagree with him on this?

 

[Wick Stick]

Where did you make what argument?

Sorry, I misunderstood the prior post. I thought you were saying I made an argument that it means something else. I was a little frustrated, since that was exactly the opposite of what I said.

You agree that Exodus plainly says and means "six days."

Yes.

It's difficult to see how you could come from there to convince someone that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

That's a foolish argument.

My argument, instead, as regards the verse, is:

1) This verse is probably a gloss in the text.
2) The context of the verse is not about creation. (Exodus 20 establishes moral, religious and societal laws.) You're using the verse out of context.

The Bible directly eliminates evolutionism as a possible partner.

If you mis-use it by proof-texting and using it out of context, I guess it does.

The law is only good if you use it lawfully. If you use it to create doctrines where it originally intended none created, you are using it unlawfully.

This is how the Pharisees turned the Tanach into that unwieldy mess that Jews call "Oral Law" and "tradition." You know... the one Jesus subverted?

Jarrod

 

[6days]

It's difficult to see how you could come from there to convince someone that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.
That's a foolish argument.

The context of the verse (Ex. 20:11) *is not about creation.

Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy"

The Bible directly eliminates evolutionism as a possible partner.

If you mis-use it by proof-texting and using it out of context, I guess it does.

Stripe is correct. Common ancestry beliefs destroy the gospel.

1 Cor. 15 explains the need of a literal Last Adam suffering and defeating physical death, *as a result of sin by the literal first Adam. Evolutionism places physical death as part of the creation God calls very good, and not a result of sin. If "the final enemy" death, was part of what God calls "very good"..... then Christ went to Calvary for nothing. Evolutionism DOES destroy the gospel.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Common ancestry beliefs destroy the gospel.

So if a person were to review the science and conclude that common ancestry is valid, it would be logical for them to reject the gospel?

 

[Stripe]

6Days says context can negate plain meaning in other passages.

Context helps create the meaning. If you want to be part of a discussion, you have to be able to read. The Bible plainly teaches "six days." The stuff about seeds plainly teaches something about faith. When you're ignoring what is plainly said to try and score some obscure point, you're doing it wrong.

Sorry, I misunderstood the prior post. I thought you were saying I made an argument that it means something else. I was a little frustrated, since that was exactly the opposite of what I said.

:up:

That's a foolish argument.

Not really. Exodus says the world was created in six days, which lines up with the rest of scripture. It's a summary of Genesis 1. It would be foolish to insist that Exodus is not related to Genesis.

My argument, instead, as regards the verse, is:
1) This verse is probably a gloss in the text.
2) The context of the verse is not about creation. (Exodus 20 establishes moral, religious and societal laws.) You're using the verse out of context.

Even if this were true — and there doesn't seem to be any good reason to accept your ideas — Genesis also teaches "six days."

If you mis-use it by proof-texting and using it out of context, I guess it does.

:darwinsm:

Have you read the Bible?

The law is only good if you use it lawfully. If you use it to create doctrines where it originally intended none created, you are using it unlawfully. This is how the Pharisees turned the Tanach into that unwieldy mess that Jews call "Oral Law" and "tradition." You know... the one Jesus subverted? Jarrod

Now I know you haven't read the Bible. Jesus did not subvert the law.

 

[6days]

Common ancestry beliefs destroy the gospel.

So if a person were to review the science and conclude that common ancestry is valid, it would be logical for them to reject the gospel?

Common ancestry is a belief, not science.*

We could ask your question like this. If a person was a complete blank slate (nobody is) *reviewing the science, and conclude that there is design to the universe...design in nature...would it be logical for them to conclude *that there is a designer?*

If *a person accepts common ancestry beliefs, they have reached the wrong conclusion since that contradicts the absolute truth of God's Word.*

 

[Alate_One]

A Christian perspective on Biological classification and cladistics.

Why Cladistics works

 

[Stripe]

A Christian perspective on Biological classification and cladistics.YT="Why Cladistics works"]zsuIpSDXRAE[/YT]

We know why you want to post videos and pretty pictures instead of engaging on the issues that challenge your precious evolutionism.