Evolution debunked in 1980 by top scientists
Martin East
vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
of interest to anyone involved.
This article points out some of the problems with the evolutionary theory.
This article is completely informal and all I hope is that it makes people
think a bit.
Please excuse this article if it's content has already been discussed
elsewhere.
Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
--------------------------------------------------------
All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
contradictory to God's word. If you dilute out God's book Genesis saying, oh
well add a few years here there etc. then the whole of your faith can be
proved wrong by saying "oh well it must all be just a metaphor etc...blah
drivel" is sin a METAPHOR?, was the original sin of Adam and Eve just a
metaphor, then there is not point in Jesus then is there and there will not
be a Judgement day- carry on like this any you truly will be on really stormy
doubting waters. Do not argue with me about this, I've said all I need to. If
you as a Christian do not trust God to tell you the truth then you need more
strength of faith, pray for some. Do not believe what comes from the minds of
men over God's infinite mind. God says it like it was and we shall all find
that out eventually. The truth is *very* simple and even the youngest child
has no problem with it, and God did say, be childlike. There is overwhelming
proof that Noah's flood did occur through rock samples + fossil layers and it
,for instance, is not a metaphor.
--
In 1980 a meeting between top scientists around the world decided to try and
gather their evidence for the proof of evolutionary theory, they failed.
There was no proof which showed evolution in action.
Here are a few things which I could discuss in more detail - the examples
given are not the only ones. There are many examples which disprove
evolution. I will not force you to believe that God did make the world but I
will show that evolution did not.
Dinosaurs were around in biblical times ( meantioned in Joab as a creature
with a cedar tree sized tail (diplodicus probably). Known as dragons by many
early civilisations.
Fossils can be formed in 50 years. A miners hat was found fossilised in a
mine which was 50 years old.
Why are there not any fossils created now? Do you see fossils lying at the
bottom of our sea waiting to be fossilised? No - they rot. They always
have. Fossils are created by silt covering animals in a hurry. Earthquakes,
volcanoes, *floods* (specifically Noah's flood). Animal fossils which show
animals eating one another or giving birth prove this ( there are
hundereds).
They also have extreme detail present on them which would not be present had
they been rotting away.
Rock (and hence fossil) layers do not form vertically over time. They form
horizontally. This has been proved by controlled experiment (seen the
video).
All the top geologists agree that this is the case.
Canyons can be formed in an afternoon. e.g. A mud slide carved a canyon out
of
hard rock in one afternoon. The grand canyon was probably formed in the same
way.
Rock dating methods are wildly inaccurate. Potassium Argon dating has been
proved wrong. A rock known in living memory to be 200 years old was dated by
this method to be over 300 million years old.
Carbon 14 dating is flawed by its having too many variable components which
are unknown. ( Assuming the world is 10,000 years old the error margin on
thuis method is something which allows no accuracy whatsoever).
90% of all possible known methods for dating the Solar Systems gave values
of its age of less than 10,000 years. The 10% that was left is what is
adopted by the Scientists. Obviously an extremely rational approach ??.
Many of the 'approved' formulae for the basis of alot of science (Einstein
and Newton) work better with values taken from Creationist research. e.g.
Light does not take millions of years to reach earth. Gravity bends light,
and it affects time. By using formula already 'approved' by the science
world this can be proved quite legitimately.
Many of the world top Phd scientists are God fearing, being the best minds
in the world they must have something right! Newton was one... (will get a
list if I can).
--
Genetic theory not linked with Evolution.
-----------------------------------------
Adam has perfect genetic material.
Eve had perfect genetic material.
And all animals created at that time also had perfect genetic material.
Though the reproduction process information is "copied" badly to the sperm
and eggs. This follows with entropy theory that everything is deteriorating
into maximum state of chaos.
Because two strands of dna are used to make the new human/animal. Then what
is corrupt in one strand is taken from the other. Hence - not everyone is
mutated. Certain corruptions will lose data from the dna forever
(corruptions in both strands of dna at same place). This will
produce a new animal without that instruction. Not an animal with a new
instruction.
The actual difference between gentic material for all known human races is
0.012% - not very much. This includes all "mutations".
The same applies to animal species.
All known cases of "evolution in progress" have actually been shown just to
be natural selection. They were never argued otherwise actually. Its just
that people took them in the wrong light.
There always was a ddt resistant strain of mosquito, there always were black
and white moths. Just is different numbers according to the *fact* of
natural selection. That is why white people live in cooler countries like
UK. By mutation we have lost the ability to produce melanin in our skin.
Two poodles breed - you get a poodle but you will never get a great dane
*common sense* eh?.
Two mongrels breed - you may get a poodle or a great dane - this is how we
got poodles and great danes - breeders bred them.
A poodle will never *mutate* into a great dane because it has lost its
height instruction. This has been shown to be the case for hundreds of
years.
Noah's ark did not have to have *all* the animals on it, only the pure
strains (e.g. mongrels) which could breed to produce all the others.
Its all very common sense. And it fits genetics perfectly.
People researching genetic engineering in plants ( to produce super
tomatoes) are trying to find pure wild breeds full of genetic information
which they can store. When a new disease arrives on the scene which
threatens to wipe out all these super tomatoes, they will turn to the
genetic (more complete) material in the wild plants to re-derive through
breeding selection (human created natural selection) a new immune plant
which has a large yield.
The Irish potato famine occurred because the potatoes had been bred for
yield and by accident some disease fighting information had been bred out of
them also. Because no other breeds were available (discarded due to
innefficiency in crop turnout) all the "selected" potatoes died... and
caused the famine.
The more selected a species gets the more succeptible to disease until it
hits extinction.
Hundreds of species are becoming extinct not specifically because of us but
because of this degredation process which has occurred over time
( to me it was the introduction of sin which has caused it).
--
Many of these things are really sketchy, only skimming the surface. Being a
logical sort of bloke (computer science and that) I feel very secure in
God's word. And will accept any challege put forward. I stand on the rock.
Remember that science is a tool that us humans have created, treat it like
such. A hammer can go rusty and get thrown out, so can theories. Evolution
is not immune.
Anything otherwise - to treat it like we know it all - is exactly the same as
wanting to be our own god and to prove that we don't need God.
This is extremely natural , it is what created sin in the first place - The
tree of knowledge and everything! :)
God is with us and keeps us strong - and we truly stand on the rock of ages.
:)
May God be with you all.
PS. I don't really want a 125 article long thread come from this atall. That
defeats the point of the whole issue. Mail me if you have any questions
instead.
PPS. I am going on holiday for a while so excuse me if there appears to be
no reply's for a bit.
--
Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science
: Heriot-Watt University
Email: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk : Edinburgh (Scotland)
______________________________________________________
(Advertising Manager for "Watt's On" student newspaper.)
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
(If you want to place an ad in this local Edinburgh )
(paper please E-Mail for details. )
(______________________________________________________)
`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes
<>< - Its quite good having my creator as a friend.
Steven Carr
wrote :
>I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary
>vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
>of interest to anyone involved.
<skip for length>
>Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
>contradictory to God's word.
The Pope believes in evolution. So do lots of Christians.
<skip>
>The truth is *very* simple and even the youngest child
>has no problem with it, and God did say, be childlike. There is overwhelming
>proof that Noah's flood did occur through rock samples + fossil layers and it
>,for instance, is not a metaphor.
There is no overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood.
>--
>In 1980 a meeting between top scientists around the world decided to try and
>gather their evidence for the proof of evolutionary theory, they failed.
>There was no proof which showed evolution in action.
Name these scientists.
Name this conference.
<skip>
>Dinosaurs were around in biblical times ( meantioned in Joab as a creature
>with a cedar tree sized tail (diplodicus probably). Known as dragons by many
>early civilisations.
Really???
>Fossils can be formed in 50 years. A miners hat was found fossilised in a
>mine which was 50 years old.
>Why are there not any fossils created now?
There are. Even your previous sentence assumed that fossils can be
formed.
<skip>
>Rock (and hence fossil) layers do not form vertically over time. They form
>horizontally. This has been proved by controlled experiment (seen the
>video).
>All the top geologists agree that this is the case.
I've seen layers of rock. I've seen rock layers on top of other rock
layers.
>Canyons can be formed in an afternoon. e.g. A mud slide carved a canyon out
>of
>hard rock in one afternoon. The grand canyon was probably formed in the same
>way.
Nonsense. The grand canyon was formed over a long period of time.
>Rock dating methods are wildly inaccurate. Potassium Argon dating has been
>proved wrong. A rock known in living memory to be 200 years old was dated by
>this method to be over 300 million years old.
Rock dating methods can be contaminated, but in general they are
pretty accurate.
>Carbon 14 dating is flawed by its having too many variable components which
>are unknown. ( Assuming the world is 10,000 years old the error margin on
>thuis method is something which allows no accuracy whatsoever).
Carbon 14 dating is not used to date the earth. There are ice cores
which are older than 10,000 years old.
>90% of all possible known methods for dating the Solar Systems gave values
>of its age of less than 10,000 years. The 10% that was left is what is
>adopted by the Scientists. Obviously an extremely rational approach ??.
Are these the scientists mentioned below who are God-fearing?
>Many of the world top Phd scientists are God fearing, being the best minds
>in the world they must have something right! Newton was one... (will get a
>list if I can).
Are these the same scientists mentioned above, who are not rational?
>--
>Genetic theory not linked with Evolution.
>And all animals created at that time also had perfect genetic material.
<skip>
>The actual difference between gentic material for all known human races is
>0.012% - not very much. This includes all "mutations".
>The same applies to animal species.
>All known cases of "evolution in progress" have actually been shown just to
>be natural selection. They were never argued otherwise actually. Its just
>that people took them in the wrong light.
>There always was a ddt resistant strain of mosquito, there always were black
>and white moths. Just is different numbers according to the *fact* of
>natural selection. That is why white people live in cooler countries like
>UK. By mutation we have lost the ability to produce melanin in our skin.
Sounds like a textbook case of evolution thru natural selection to me.
>Two poodles breed - you get a poodle but you will never get a great dane
>*common sense* eh?.
Where then did Great Danes come from?
>Two mongrels breed - you may get a poodle or a great dane - this is how we
>got poodles and great danes - breeders bred them.
Breeders breed from mongrels! You'll have the Pedigree Club on you.
>A poodle will never *mutate* into a great dane because it has lost its
>height instruction. This has been shown to be the case for hundreds of
>years.
>Noah's ark did not have to have *all* the animals on it, only the pure
>strains (e.g. mongrels) which could breed to produce all the others.
How can a pure strain be a mongrel?
2 animals do not have the genetic diversity that millions have.
>Its all very common sense. And it fits genetics perfectly.
<skip>
>Many of these things are really sketchy, only skimming the surface. Being a
>logical sort of bloke (computer science and that) I feel very secure in
>God's word. And will accept any challege put forward. I stand on the rock.
It seems like appalling ignorance to me.
<skip>
>`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
> the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes
I like the strain of cynicism in Ecclesaistes.
.
Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com
When morality is on your side, pound away at morality.
When facts are on your side, pound away at facts.
When neither is on your side, pound away at your opponent.
Robert Billing
> All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
> contradictory to God's word.
In the words of the immortal transcendent earwig "ear-wi-go-again". I
have lost count of the number of times that I have posted this.
There is *absoultely* *nothing* in Genesis that makes a
statement about evolution, for or against. People who claim to
be Christians *must* stop pretending that there is, as it is
causing rational people who are looking for the truth to turn
away from the gospel.
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live in England, near 0:46W 51:22N. "A very close orbit" "How
Close?" "It actually shaves the surface. Our problem on Negrav is...
how to stop it being eaten by the black hole." The Unorthodox Engineers
Frank Lane
>I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary
>vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
>of interest to anyone involved.
>
>This article points out some of the problems with the evolutionary theory.
>
If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
evolutionists can find answers.
Now you've started another hare going on this endless argument and my
kill-file is getting full.
No-one is going to convince anyone on this argument.
Still, at least it's only on uk.r.c so we won't get reams of abuse from the
US.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Love, Joy and Peace in Jesus
============================
la...@enterprise.net
http://homepages.enterprise.net/lane
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alan Zanker
>Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
>contradictory to God's word. If you dilute out God's book Genesis saying, oh
>well add a few years here there etc. then the whole of your faith can be
>proved wrong by saying "oh well it must all be just a metaphor etc...blah
>drivel" is sin a METAPHOR?, was the original sin of Adam and Eve just a
>metaphor, then there is not point in Jesus then is there and there will not
>be a Judgement day- carry on like this any you truly will be on really stormy
>doubting waters.
Is honest doubt a bad thing? Why does disbelieving one part of a
generally trustworthy writing mean you've to disbelieve the lot -
don't you ever find 'good' textbooks contain mistakes?
>Do not argue with me about this, I've said all I need to.
(Sorry - can't resist (:-))
>If you as a Christian do not trust God to tell you the truth then you need more
>strength of faith, pray for some. Do not believe what comes from the minds of
>men over God's infinite mind. God says it like it was and we shall all find
>that out eventually.
As I understand it 'faith' is trust in the saving power of God
revealed in Christ, and reliance on the Holy Spirit (along with - and
through - sizeable doses of common-sense, reason, tradition and human
experience) for guidance in everyday affairs - not a desperate attempt
to believe the impossible.
Alan
--
Alan Zanker | e-mail:al...@bittern.demon.co.uk
Leeds |
Martin East
: on Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:08:52 GMT, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East)
: wrote :
: >I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary
: >vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
: >of interest to anyone involved.
: <skip for length>
: >Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
: >--------------------------------------------------------
: >All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
: >contradictory to God's word.
: The Pope believes in evolution. So do lots of Christians.
: <skip>
:
: >The truth is *very* simple and even the youngest child
: >has no problem with it, and God did say, be childlike. There is overwhelming
: >proof that Noah's flood did occur through rock samples + fossil layers and it
: >,for instance, is not a metaphor.
: There is no overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood.
What about the tremendous amount of fossils discovered in rock?
: >Why are there not any fossils created now?
Sorry, meant to say why is it not common for fossils to be seen getting
fossilised all over the place- animals + plants rot under normal
circumstances.
: >Rock (and hence fossil) layers do not form vertically over time. They form
: >horizontally. This has been proved by controlled experiment (seen the
: >video).
: >All the top geologists agree that this is the case.
: I've seen layers of rock. I've seen rock layers on top of other rock
: layers.
Yes, but have you thought of that old expt. in school where we shake up
different gradients of sand and let them settle? They settle according to
weight and particle size. Rock layers are formed from "inland" out to the
newest bit which is the shoreline. Shorelines are sloped showing this.
With pebbles at top, and sand at bottom that is how the gradiation is
achieved.
: >Canyons can be formed in an afternoon. e.g. A mud slide carved a canyon out
: >of
: >hard rock in one afternoon. The grand canyon was probably formed in the same
: >way.
: Nonsense. The grand canyon was formed over a long period of time.
I dont think so.
: >Rock dating methods are wildly inaccurate. Potassium Argon dating has been
: >proved wrong. A rock known in living memory to be 200 years old was
dated by : >this method to be over 300 million years old.
: Rock dating methods can be contaminated, but in general they are
: pretty accurate.
I dont think so.
: >Carbon 14 dating is flawed by its having too many variable components which
: >are unknown. ( Assuming the world is 10,000 years old the error margin on
: >thuis method is something which allows no accuracy whatsoever).
: Carbon 14 dating is not used to date the earth. There are ice cores
: which are older than 10,000 years old.
I dont think so. I believe in what God has written. The world is
: >90% of all possible known methods for dating the Solar Systems gave values
: >of its age of less than 10,000 years. The 10% that was left is what is
: >adopted by the Scientists. Obviously an extremely rational approach ??.
: Are these the scientists mentioned below who are God-fearing?
Yes.
: >Many of the world top Phd scientists are God fearing, being the best minds
: >in the world they must have something right! Newton was one... (will get a
: >list if I can).
: Are these the same scientists mentioned above, who are not rational?
: >--
: >Genetic theory not linked with Evolution.
: >And all animals created at that time also had perfect genetic material.
: <skip>
: >The actual difference between gentic material for all known human races is
: >0.012% - not very much. This includes all "mutations".
: >The same applies to animal species.
: >All known cases of "evolution in progress" have actually been shown just to
: >be natural selection. They were never argued otherwise actually. Its just
: >that people took them in the wrong light.
: >There always was a ddt resistant strain of mosquito, there always were black
: >and white moths. Just is different numbers according to the *fact* of
: >natural selection. That is why white people live in cooler countries like
: >UK. By mutation we have lost the ability to produce melanin in our skin.
: Sounds like a textbook case of evolution thru natural selection to me.
Natural selection exists - evolution does not.
: >Two poodles breed - you get a poodle but you will never get a great dane
: >*common sense* eh?.
: Where then did Great Danes come from?
Mongrels
: >Two mongrels breed - you may get a poodle or a great dane - this is how we
: >got poodles and great danes - breeders bred them.
: Breeders breed from mongrels! You'll have the Pedigree Club on you.
Probably. :)
I also think that its the Kennel Club!
: >A poodle will never *mutate* into a great dane because it has lost its
: >height instruction. This has been shown to be the case for hundreds of
: >years.
: >Noah's ark did not have to have *all* the animals on it, only the pure
: >strains (e.g. mongrels) which could breed to produce all the others.
: How can a pure strain be a mongrel?
: 2 animals do not have the genetic diversity that millions have.
More genetic material in a mongrel.
: >Its all very common sense. And it fits genetics perfectly.
: <skip>
: >Many of these things are really sketchy, only skimming the surface. Being a
: >logical sort of bloke (computer science and that) I feel very secure in
: >God's word. And will accept any challege put forward. I stand on the rock.
: It seems like appalling ignorance to me.
Fair enough. I think its accurate according to bible teaching.
: <skip>
: >`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
: > the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes
: I like the strain of cynicism in Ecclesaistes.
Very cynical book.
--
Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science
: Heriot-Watt University
Email: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk : Edinburgh (Scotland)
______________________________________________________
(Advertising Manager for "Watt's On" student newspaper.)
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
(If you want to place an ad in this local Edinburgh )
(paper please E-Mail for details. )
(______________________________________________________)
`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes
<>< - Its quite good having my creator as a friend.
Martin East
: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
: >Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
: >--------------------------------------------------------
: >
: >All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
: >contradictory to God's word. If you dilute out God's book Genesis saying, oh
: >well add a few years here there etc. then the whole of your faith can be
: >proved wrong by saying "oh well it must all be just a metaphor etc...blah
: >drivel" is sin a METAPHOR?, was the original sin of Adam and Eve just a
: >metaphor, then there is not point in Jesus then is there and there will not
: >be a Judgement day- carry on like this any you truly will be on really stormy
: >doubting waters.
: Is honest doubt a bad thing? Why does disbelieving one part of a
: generally trustworthy writing mean you've to disbelieve the lot -
: don't you ever find 'good' textbooks contain mistakes?
Aye, but to doubt what God said what happened in the beginning is a bit
dangerous, since the rest of what God says is based on it (extremely
strongly).
: >Do not argue with me about this, I've said all I need to.
: (Sorry - can't resist (:-))
:
: >If you as a Christian do not trust God to tell you the truth then you need more
: >strength of faith, pray for some. Do not believe what comes from the minds of
: >men over God's infinite mind. God says it like it was and we shall all find
: >that out eventually.
: As I understand it 'faith' is trust in the saving power of God
: revealed in Christ, and reliance on the Holy Spirit (along with - and
: through - sizeable doses of common-sense, reason, tradition and human
: experience) for guidance in everyday affairs - not a desperate attempt
: to believe the impossible.
Do you not trust God to tell you the truth about the beginning?
I trust he has.
: Alan
: --
: Alan Zanker | e-mail:al...@bittern.demon.co.uk
: Leeds |
Martin East
: In article <Dp8su...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
: >I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary
: >vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
: >of interest to anyone involved.
: >
: >This article points out some of the problems with the evolutionary theory.
: Oh dear! I wish you hadn't done this.
: If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
: evolutionists can find answers.
Unfortunately they haven't found any (to the best of my knowledge)! :)
: Now you've started another hare going on this endless argument and my
: kill-file is getting full.
Sorry, will delete stuff pretty soon.
: No-one is going to convince anyone on this argument.
I have managed to certainly get my uni non-christian friends to see a
different point of view!
If we as Christians do not trust the truth then how are we going to
witness effectively?
Frank Lane
>Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
>: If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
>: evolutionists can find answers.
>
>Unfortunately they haven't found any (to the best of my knowledge)! :)
>
Of course they've found answers. They've been posting them at an alarming
rate. The fact that you don't accept their answers is a different matter
entirely. I never said you'ld be convinced!
>: No-one is going to convince anyone on this argument.
>
>I have managed to certainly get my uni non-christian friends to see a
>different point of view!
>
Ah, but Martin, we're not dealing with your uni friends here. We're dealing
(or at least we were when this was being discussed in talk.origins as well
[which was the case when I posted the quoted message)] with a group of
fundamentalist evolutionists which is much worse than trying to convince
fundamentalist Christians.
>If we as Christians do not trust the truth then how are we going to
>witness effectively?
>
But is a crudely literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 3 *necessarily* "the
truth". Did Moses, or God, set out to write a scientific treatise in advance.
Is not creation itself part of God's revelation (since God does not lie) and
can we not accept the possibility that creation tells some of its own story.
I've been flamed by the evolutionists so much that I can now take a bit of
flack from my brethren (and sisters) if necessary.
I'm not convinced that science and God are in conflict. Just some scientists
and some of God's people.
Frank
Steven Carr
respect and who is a more than reasonable person.
on Wed, 17 Apr 96 07:42, la...@enterprise.net (Frank Lane) wrote :
>In article <DpyI0...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
>>Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
>>: If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
>>: evolutionists can find answers.
>>
>>Unfortunately they haven't found any (to the best of my knowledge)! :)
>>
>Of course they've found answers. They've been posting them at an alarming
>rate. The fact that you don't accept their answers is a different matter
>entirely. I never said you'ld be convinced!
I'm still waiting for details of this conference and details of these
'top scientists'.
>>
>>I have managed to certainly get my uni non-christian friends to see a
>>different point of view!
>>
>Ah, but Martin, we're not dealing with your uni friends here. We're dealing
>(or at least we were when this was being discussed in talk.origins as well
>[which was the case when I posted the quoted message)] with a group of
>fundamentalist evolutionists which is much worse than trying to convince
>fundamentalist Christians.
The situation on talk.origins reflects the situation in America where
science teaching is under systematic attack by people who are prepared
to misquote, distort and downright lie to discredit evolution. They do
this to promote Creationism, which was debunked last century.
Naturally, the flame level is rather high. It ought to be noted that
many people on t.o defending evolution are Christians.
>I'm not convinced that science and God are in conflict. Just some scientists
>and some of God's people.
I've found that it is almost invariable that Creationist quotes are
misquotes and their facts are wrong.Not only are they wrong, but
usually they were debunked years ago. If pointing out distortion is
'flaming', then flaming has to be done. It does, though, get a bit
expasperating pointing out *one more time* about how exploding
Bomardier beetles do not explode, the Grand Canyon is very old, C-14
dating is not used for fossils etc. etc.
Paul Wheeler
> I'm not convinced that science and God are in conflict. Just some
> scientists and some of God's people.
Well said, I`m sure you are right.
Tony Wheeler
Martin East
: None of the following is to be taken as critical of Mr. Lane, who I
: respect and who is a more than reasonable person.
: on Wed, 17 Apr 96 07:42, la...@enterprise.net (Frank Lane) wrote :
: >In article <DpyI0...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
: >>Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: >>: If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
: >>: evolutionists can find answers.
: >>
: >>Unfortunately they haven't found any (to the best of my knowledge)! :)
: >>
: >Of course they've found answers. They've been posting them at an alarming
: >rate. The fact that you don't accept their answers is a different matter
: >entirely. I never said you'ld be convinced!
: I'm still waiting for details of this conference and details of these
: 'top scientists'.
I'm still waiting to ask my friend for the details.
: >>
: >>I have managed to certainly get my uni non-christian friends to see a
: >>different point of view!
: >>
: >Ah, but Martin, we're not dealing with your uni friends here. We're dealing
: >(or at least we were when this was being discussed in talk.origins as well
: >[which was the case when I posted the quoted message)] with a group of
: >fundamentalist evolutionists which is much worse than trying to convince
: >fundamentalist Christians.
: The situation on talk.origins reflects the situation in America where
: science teaching is under systematic attack by people who are prepared
: to misquote, distort and downright lie to discredit evolution. They do
: this to promote Creationism, which was debunked last century.
This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
Evolution in favour of God's word.
If There are false Christians preaching Creationism it discredits
us all. We should not allow ourselves to be swayed into the junky
evolutionary scheme by who supports what. Don't defend evolution, kill
it off! Its what the church should have done when Darwin first brought
out the stuff. The signs of the times don't look too good do they? :)
But no the church tried to fit the bible around science instead of
science around the bible.
: Naturally, the flame level is rather high. It ought to be noted that
: many people on t.o defending evolution are Christians.
: >I'm not convinced that science and God are in conflict. Just some scientists
: >and some of God's people.
: I've found that it is almost invariable that Creationist quotes are
: misquotes and their facts are wrong.Not only are they wrong, but
Are the facts they misquote from the Bible?
: usually they were debunked years ago. If pointing out distortion is
: 'flaming', then flaming has to be done. It does, though, get a bit
Surely flaming is a 'aggressive' manoevre (not quite sure of etiquette)?
Can we express Jesus' love by doing this?
: expasperating pointing out *one more time* about how exploding
: Bomardier beetles do not explode, the Grand Canyon is very old, C-14
: dating is not used for fossils etc. etc.
: ..
: Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com
: When morality is on your side, pound away at morality.
: When facts are on your side, pound away at facts.
: When neither is on your side, pound away at your opponent.
I admit I know little detail about Creationism ( acording to science
today), but I rely on God's Word for the truth.
God Bless.
Robert Billing
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:56 GMT
Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 17
In article <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:
> This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
> only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
> YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
> Evolution in favour of God's word.
With all due respect, you appear to have discarded God's word in
favour of a conjectural interpretation. There is *absolutely*
*nothing* in the bible to justify your making *any* comment
about evolution, for or against.
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live in England, near 0:46W 51:22N. "How strange-
indeed, how perverse- to weep for a machine! Even one with as complex
and temperamental a personality as the Mark I..." Arthur C Clarke
Martin East
: net> <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:56 GMT
: Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
: X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
: Lines: 17
: In article <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:
: > This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
: > only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
: > YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
: > Evolution in favour of God's word.
: With all due respect, you appear to have discarded God's word in
: favour of a conjectural interpretation. There is *absolutely*
: *nothing* in the bible to justify your making *any* comment
: about evolution, for or against.
To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.
Martin East
Dave Spence (djs...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: : : > This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
: : : > YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
: : : > Evolution in favour of God's word.
: : To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
: : before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.
: Actually I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that man
: would have lived forever even if he had not sinned. Have you read the bit
: were God states that He doesn't want them to eat "of the tree of life and
: live forever". Furthermore what about animals, they die - are they under
: the judgment of sin as well.
: Have you ever considered that if evolution is complete rubbish and the
: world really was created in 6-days and is only 6000 years old then there
: must be some MAJOR deception going on. It is not just evolution which
^
But there is :)
Satan's prevelance in the world is growing, he uses media to distract people
why not science?
Science is a tool which we use to help us in this world. Our extremely
limited understanding cannot allow us to make rash decisions based on
what we see as fact, because there are so many holes in it all.
All these evolutionary arguments can only really stand when the
unification theory which links all the existing theories together (from
all sciences) is found.
Until we have this complete knowledge about how things relate to one
another it will be extremely difficult to make *any* factual judgement
on the
world we live in.
Such things as the speed of light argument etc, fossils and stuff all
fall into this easy to define category as mere conjectures of what is
actually out there.
Gravity - for instance has the power to distort time , and so make
light bend. What we see we cannot believe unless we view it from another
time frame too (point in space) - surely.
Why does the world look 5 billion yrs old? It Doesn't, it looks 6000 yrs old.
Fossils date rocks <-> Rocks date fossils. - A little catch 22.
Dating methods are scientifically proven to be false, by the laws which
science approves. The main one being the relative scale one.
Anyway this stuff, it makes me stronger in my faith.
And praise God for that.
Gets away from the world which brings me down... :(
Put myself in my place.
I find it helps me witness too.
Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
One theory should not really be put above another. I suppose I am
wrong to push creationism. I just wanted to give others the peace of
mind I find I get with this. I cannot believe that Jesus would
send me to church to knock down my faith, only to build me up. Many
others who I have met (I think all) think similarly and I enjoy
renewed strength from what I have come into contact with.
But I suppose
the only real thing which really matters
is that we definately know is that Jesus is alive now
: points to the great age of the world but so do a whole host of other
: sicences such as geology and physics. Did God really create the universe
: 6000 years ago and make it look 5 billion years old. What about stella
: evolution, the red-shift and cosmic background radiation. Light only
: travels at a finite speed. So if we are looking at a distant galaxy, say
: 2 million light years away, then the light left that galaxy 2 million
: years ago. As Hubble can see galaxies MUCH further away than this then the
: light left them many millions of years ago, again suggesting that the
: universe is ancient. Now, not for a minute am I suggesting that this means
: that everything came about by chance. It is a very important part of the
: Christian faith that God created Heaven and Earth. I AM NOT DISPUTING
: THIS. All I am saying is that the evidence is overwelming that it happened
: a long time ago - far more than 6000 years as creationists claim.
: Considering the vast fossil record (and fossils take a LOT more than 6000
: years to form - they're made out of rock not bone) which shows an
: evolutionary path then some sort of evolution must have taken place unless
: God (or the devil ?) is playing a very large deception on us. Evolutionary
: theory may have its faults but the evidence for the occurance of an
: evolutionary process is undeniable.
: One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
: opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible. If you read Genesis
: chapter 1 you will see where God creates the animals and then man. In
: Genesis 2:18 He creates man first and then the animals as helpers. This is
: due to the fact that Genesis 2 is taken from a different creation story,
: possibly an earlier one than in Genesis 1. There is actually a THIRD
: creation story that was held by the ancient Hebrews where God created
: the Earth after defeating a choas monster called Rahab (some texts
: Leviathan). There is only the barest traces of the this story in the bible
: - see Psalm 89 and Job 23. I'm not sure if they're the exact chapters - I
: don't have a bible on me at the mo'. There is also a trace of this story
: somewhere in Isiah.
: I believe that ultimately it all comes down to your view of the bible. Do
True. But I find the rest hangs together better if I believe it as it is
written - six days Adam+Eve.
: you believe it fell from Heaven and is completely and utterly infallible
: or do you believe that it was written by real people (albeit divinely
: inspired ones) and has the limitations that these people brought to it,
: there own preconceptions and limited scientific knowledge ? After all the
: bible is not an all seeing, all knowing oracle that fell from Heaven. It
: was written over thousands of years by many different authors each with
: their own understanding and unique experience of God. This does not
: detract from it's authority but what it does mean is that insisting on
: taking every passage literally we can actually miss the point which the
: author was trying to make or, worse still, obtain a bizare and extreme
: interpretation. How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:
: "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
: against the rock".
: This hardly captures the Christian message of love and forgiveness, yet
: the Psalmist will have had his reasons for writing it. Yet how many of us
: would insist on us using this as a model for a Christian life and state
: that if we do not follow it we are denying God's word and are not true
: Christians ? Well, many creationists say that about the Genesis story.
: Yet both quotes are from the bible !
: As a final point, consider the quote "Christ came to take away our sins -
: not our minds". I don't know who made this quote but I think that it is
: very poignant when considering if we MUST take the creation story
: literally.
I think head over heels is probably a better descripton of how I feel :)
But I am not mindless!
: Peace in Christ
: Dave Spence
Dave Spence
Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : net> <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: : Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:56 GMT
: : Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
: : X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
: : Lines: 17
: : In article <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:
: : > This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
: : > only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
: : > YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
: : > Evolution in favour of God's word.
: : With all due respect, you appear to have discarded God's word in
: : favour of a conjectural interpretation. There is *absolutely*
: : *nothing* in the bible to justify your making *any* comment
: : about evolution, for or against.
: To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
: before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.
Actually I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that man
would have lived forever even if he had not sinned. Have you read the bit
were God states that He doesn't want them to eat "of the tree of life and
live forever". Furthermore what about animals, they die - are they under
the judgment of sin as well.
Have you ever considered that if evolution is complete rubbish and the
world really was created in 6-days and is only 6000 years old then there
must be some MAJOR deception going on. It is not just evolution which
you believe it fell from Heaven and is completely and utterly infallible
or do you believe that it was written by real people (albeit divinely
inspired ones) and has the limitations that these people brought to it,
there own preconceptions and limited scientific knowledge ? After all the
bible is not an all seeing, all knowing oracle that fell from Heaven. It
was written over thousands of years by many different authors each with
their own understanding and unique experience of God. This does not
detract from it's authority but what it does mean is that insisting on
taking every passage literally we can actually miss the point which the
author was trying to make or, worse still, obtain a bizare and extreme
interpretation. How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:
"Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
against the rock".
This hardly captures the Christian message of love and forgiveness, yet
the Psalmist will have had his reasons for writing it. Yet how many of us
would insist on us using this as a model for a Christian life and state
that if we do not follow it we are denying God's word and are not true
Christians ? Well, many creationists say that about the Genesis story.
Yet both quotes are from the bible !
As a final point, consider the quote "Christ came to take away our sins -
not our minds". I don't know who made this quote but I think that it is
very poignant when considering if we MUST take the creation story
literally.
Gareth Gillingham
I think the only relavent comment is the Pope's admision about Galileo
"the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go"
as this shows the diffrent statigies of the two groups. ie the Bible WHY
in easy to understand terms for Gods people then, scientists HOW does
this work.
Gareth Gillingham University of sussex mp...@central.sussex.ac.uk
"I'll never be cruel to an electron in a particle acclerator again"
The Doctor(4) The Pirate Planet
Dave Spence
DEn...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Organization: The University of York, UK
Distribution:
Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
<SNIP>
: : Have you ever considered that if evolution is complete rubbish and the
: : world really was created in 6-days and is only 6000 years old then there
: : must be some MAJOR deception going on. It is not just evolution which
: ^
: But there is :)
: Satan's prevelance in the world is growing, he uses media to distract people
: why not science?
: Science is a tool which we use to help us in this world. Our extremely
: limited understanding cannot allow us to make rash decisions based on
: what we see as fact, because there are so many holes in it all.
Come on. If we cannot draw conclusion based on our observations then we
cannot be sure of ANYTHING. You could not even be sure whether you were
reading the bible correctly. Besides, computers and all other modern
inventions have been created due to science. Do we really only accept
science when it suits us (e.g. to use a computer) and completely snub
it when it appears to contradict a literal interpretation of something in
the bible ?
: All these evolutionary arguments can only really stand when the
: unification theory which links all the existing theories together (from
: all sciences) is found.
: Until we have this complete knowledge about how things relate to one
: another it will be extremely difficult to make *any* factual judgement
: on the
: world we live in.
By that argument one might wonder about the Earth being a sphere. Perhaps
it really is flat but repeats itself !
: Such things as the speed of light argument etc, fossils and stuff all
: fall into this easy to define category as mere conjectures of what is
: actually out there.
No, the value of the speed of light is a fact and has been scientifically
proven.
: Gravity - for instance has the power to distort time , and so make
: light bend. What we see we cannot believe unless we view it from another
: time frame too (point in space) - surely.
Gravitational lensing is an accepted fact and has been observed. An
extremely large mass distorts space and the light appears to be bent as it
'follows' the distortion. The best effects are seen on far away galaxies
which have been lensed by clusters of galaxies inbetween them and the
Earth. The problem is that you need a large gravitational mass INBETWEEN the
source and the observer. There are many stars and galaxies which don't
have any large masses directly between them and us to cause any
significant gravitational lensing. Besides that, the sorts of changes
necessary to make objects, say 100 million light years away, appear 1000
light years ways could not occur as the path differences caused are much
too small. Besides, there are other methods for calculating galactic
distances such as Cephid variables. Furthermore, I believe that many stars
in our own galaxy can have there distances verified by measuring their
apparant positions at different times of the year and constructing a
triangle. As our galaxy is 150 000 light years across you can see that
there are plenty of stars which gave off light well before 6000 years ago.
: Why does the world look 5 billion yrs old? It Doesn't, it looks
: 6000 yrs old.
: Fossils date rocks <-> Rocks date fossils. - A little catch 22.
: Dating methods are scientifically proven to be false, by the laws which
: science approves. The main one being the relative scale one.
No, fossils aren't the only way of dating rocks.
: Anyway this stuff, it makes me stronger in my faith.
: And praise God for that.
: Gets away from the world which brings me down... :(
: Put myself in my place.
Fair enough. I will agree that God created Heaven and Earth and I also
believe that knowing that helps to remind me that He has it all under
control and that there is meaning in this sometimes meaningless world
: I find it helps me witness too.
: Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
: One theory should not really be put above another. I suppose I am
: wrong to push creationism. I just wanted to give others the peace of
: mind I find I get with this. I cannot believe that Jesus would
: send me to church to knock down my faith, only to build me up. Many
: others who I have met (I think all) think similarly and I enjoy
: renewed strength from what I have come into contact with.
: But I suppose
: the only real thing which really matters
: is that we definately know is that Jesus is alive now
YES ! ABSOLUTELY ! I do agree with you that the only thing that really
matters is our faith in Jesus and knowing that He died for us. Compared to
that creation vs. evolution is just mere detail.
John Chapman
In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
writes
>
>Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
>One theory should not really be put above another.
There speaks a non scientist if ever there was one. Science is about
describing systematically and making predictions based upon that
description. What Science manages to do quite neatly is to make
predictions which can be shown to be accurate, or at least as accurate
as is required within a given domain and a given circumstance. The
problem inherent in creationism as with all similar esoteric theories is
that they have no power to predict. A theory has value only if it can be
used to predict. So theories that have a proven track record of
prediction are most certainly to be put above those that have no such
track record.
>I suppose I am
>wrong to push creationism. I just wanted to give others the peace of
>mind I find I get with this. I cannot believe that Jesus would
>send me to church to knock down my faith, only to build me up. Many
>others who I have met (I think all) think similarly and I enjoy
>renewed strength from what I have come into contact with.
>But I suppose
>the only real thing which really matters
>is that we definately know is that Jesus is alive now
I have never had any problem with a conflict between Science and Faith,
your problem is a lack of understanding of science not of faith. My
problem is that I do not believe the bible as literal truth in the same
way that I do not believe science as literal truth.
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
i...@ellijay.com
ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
>Dave Spence (djs...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
<snip gobs>
>: you believe it fell from Heaven and is completely and utterly infallible
>: or do you believe that it was written by real people (albeit divinely
>: inspired ones) and has the limitations that these people brought to it,
>: there own preconceptions and limited scientific knowledge ? After all the
>: bible is not an all seeing, all knowing oracle that fell from Heaven. It
>: was written over thousands of years by many different authors each with
>: their own understanding and unique experience of God. This does not
>: detract from it's authority but what it does mean is that insisting on
>: taking every passage literally we can actually miss the point which the
>: author was trying to make or, worse still, obtain a bizare and extreme
>: interpretation. How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:
>: "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
>: against the rock".
>: This hardly captures the Christian message of love and forgiveness, yet
>: the Psalmist will have had his reasons for writing it.
The Psalmist certainly did: it is a song of prophecy against Babylon
(the Israelites were held captive there, remember) and it means just what
it says: Happy shall he (the Medes and Persians, under Cyrus) be who takes...
etc. Those folks were'nt known for their kindness, you know. They probably
were pretty happy when they overran the fortified city of Babylon without
much of a struggle!
Please read the entire Psalm. Its meaning will be clear.
>;Yet how many of us
>: would insist on us using this as a model for a Christian life and state
>: that if we do not follow it we are denying God's word and are not true
>: Christians ? Well, many creationists say that about the Genesis story.
>: Yet both quotes are from the bible !
So is this one: "There is no God".Psalm 14:1
Again, please read the whole thing.
*************************************************************
The opinions expressed are mine. They are also my employer's.
They would be everybody's if everybody weren't so darn dumb!
*************************************************************
Paul Johnson
In article <DqExH...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
>To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
>before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.
OK. Try this on for size:
According to the bible, only humans have souls. So at some point our
ape-like ancestors either developed sufficiently to become suitable
vessels for a soul, or "soulfulness" developed as a consequence of
intelligence and emotions. Pick either, it doesn't matter.
So now we have the first humans, who promptly committed sin (being
only human). They were therefore the first (sinful) humans to
die. It was *human* death that didn't exist before original sin.
IIRC, this is how C.S. Lewis dealt with this issue.
Paul.
--
Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.
Alan Zanker
John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My problem is that I do not believe the bible as literal truth in the same
>way that I do not believe science as literal truth.
That's an interesting way of putting it, but I'm curious as to why
it's a problem. A story can give us significant insights into the
human condition without being literally true. Shakespeare's Hamlet and
the story of the fall (or should it be the rise?) of humanity in
Genesis 3 are good examples.
John Chapman
In article <3181c5b2...@news.demon.co.uk>, Alan Zanker
<al...@bittern.demon.co.uk> writes
>John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>My problem is that I do not believe the bible as literal truth in the same
>>way that I do not believe science as literal truth.
>
>That's an interesting way of putting it, but I'm curious as to why
>it's a problem. A story can give us significant insights into the
>human condition without being literally true. Shakespeare's Hamlet and
>the story of the fall (or should it be the rise?) of humanity in
>Genesis 3 are good examples.
original poster who appeared to believe in the bible as literal truth. I
agree with you that the bible contains stories which give both an
insight into the human condition and into the relationship between God
and man using imagery and myth to make a point.
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
Frank Lane
In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:
>One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
>opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.
Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't REALLY
support the bible." or even better "The Bible does not really support
creationism"?
Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The
religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.
Frank
Love, Peace and Joy in Jesus
*************************************
Frank Lane
la...@enterprise.net
http://homepages.enterprise.net/lane
*************************************
Frank Lane
>One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
>opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.
Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't REALLY
Alan Zanker
John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Its not a problem to me but I thought it might be a problem to the
>original poster who appeared to believe in the bible as literal truth. I
>agree with you that the bible contains stories which give both an
>insight into the human condition and into the relationship between God
>and man using imagery and myth to make a point.
Thanks! Point taken.
Dave Spence
Organization: The University of York, UK
Distribution:
Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
: djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:
: >One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
: >opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.
: Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't
: REALLY support the bible." or even better "The Bible does not really
: support creationism"?
YES ! I see you point. Your rewording is actually much closer to
the point I was trying to make. I think I made a bit of a gaffe there !
: Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The
: religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
: that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
: biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
: Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.
Absolutely. If you take a view of the creation story as being allegorical,
you can gain a lot from reading it. In other words, just because it can't
be taken literally doesn't mean that it hasn't any theological
significance. In fact it has GREAT significance as it sets up the
relationship between us and God. The fact that God took longer than 144
hours to create the world does not alter the fact that He created it which
was the main point of Genesis 1.
Peace,
Dave Spence
Paul Johnson
In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
>Science is a tool which we use to help us in this world. Our extremely
>limited understanding cannot allow us to make rash decisions based on
>what we see as fact, because there are so many holes in it all.
Maybe science is full of holes, but its still the best tool we have. Both
ignorance and religion have a very poor history as the basis for decision
making.
Leaders of a number of religions (including Christianity) have told
followers to march on an enemy much better armed than they were because
God would protect them. Take a look at the history of the Crusades
for some examples.
>All these evolutionary arguments can only really stand when the
>unification theory which links all the existing theories together (from
>all sciences) is found.
>Until we have this complete knowledge about how things relate to one
>another it will be extremely difficult to make *any* factual judgement
>on the world we live in.
You seem to be arguing that we can't know anything until we know
everything. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I know the sky
is blue, but I don't know everything.
>Such things as the speed of light argument etc, fossils and stuff all
>fall into this easy to define category as mere conjectures of what is
>actually out there.
I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say here. This vagueness
makes arguing against it like trying to stab fog.
>Gravity - for instance has the power to distort time , and so make
>light bend. What we see we cannot believe unless we view it from another
>time frame too (point in space) - surely.
Umm. Surely not. Please try to learn what relativity *actually* says
before trying to use it in support of your position.
> Why does the world look 5 billion yrs old? It Doesn't, it looks 6000
> yrs old.
Which bits of the world look 6,000 years old to you, and how can you
tell?
>Fossils date rocks <-> Rocks date fossils. - A little catch 22.
>Dating methods are scientifically proven to be false, by the laws which
>science approves. The main one being the relative scale one.
Sorry? I'm not familiar with the relative scale law. And dating is not
as circular as you suppose. There are a network of dating methods, all
of which re-inforce each other, and all of which ultimately rest on
basic physics which can be observed today. Carbon dating, dendrochronology,
diffusion of water into chipped flint, all these things give a consistent
picture of the age of the earth, and all say it is a few billion years old.
>Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
>One theory should not really be put above another.
I have a theory that the sky is pink. You will of course give equal
consideration to this theory, despite scientific consensus that the sky
is in fact blue.
In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
waiting.
David Aldridge
Just a point,
Dave Spence wrote:
> One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
> opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible. If you read Genesis
> chapter 1 you will see where God creates the animals and then man. In
> Genesis 2:18 He creates man first and then the animals as helpers. This is
> due to the fact that Genesis 2 is taken from a different creation story,
> possibly an earlier one than in Genesis 1.
As I understand it, the Genesis 2 story is an explanation in more detail
of specific aspects of Genesis 1. Genesis 2 actually says that when God
brought man to the garden, he brought the animals he "had" made to Adam
for naming, and no suitable "helper" could be found. i.e., the animals
were pre-existant to Adam. This *is* consistent IMO. That is not to say
that I think the Genesis passage is necessarily the "literal truth", but
it *does* seem to be consistent.
> There is actually a THIRD
> creation story that was held by the ancient Hebrews where God created
> the Earth after defeating a choas monster called Rahab (some texts
> Leviathan). There is only the barest traces of the this story in the bible
> - see Psalm 89 and Job 23. I'm not sure if they're the exact chapters - I
> don't have a bible on me at the mo'. There is also a trace of this story
> somewhere in Isiah.
I'd be interested more in this story if the bible gave it in more detail.
However, I can't find much there. Can you find the references and give
them along with your interpretations. It seems to me that the Ps 89 passage
doesn't refer to creation when it speaks of Rahab, but just of the might
of God to be able crush some (fearful to the humans) opponent.
>How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:
>
> "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
> against the rock".
>
> This hardly captures the Christian message of love and forgiveness, yet
> the Psalmist will have had his reasons for writing it. Yet how many of us
> would insist on us using this as a model for a Christian life and state
> that if we do not follow it we are denying God's word and are not true
> Christians ? Well, many creationists say that about the Genesis story.
> Yet both quotes are from the bible !
I think this (as with many problem quotes) is taken out of context, and if
you read the whole Psalm you find that this attitude is not what is being
advocated as a general way to live. In the same way, the Genesis story
(as a whole) hangs together very well and can be used for lots of different
teaching points. I don't think it should be treated as a scientific
treatise, but then if God is God, he could have done it in the literal way
that the creationist camp argue. I also don't think evolution (abiogenesis,
evolution, natural selection, etc) by chance is a reasonable alternative
without God to start, maintain and guide the process. Either way, God is
central to my thinking of creation, which should be the main point.
> As a final point, consider the quote "Christ came to take away our sins -
> not our minds". I don't know who made this quote but I think that it is
> very poignant when considering if we MUST take the creation story
> literally.
Agreed.
David
--
David C. Aldridge
email: d...@ray.npl.co.uk / emp...@brunel.ac.uk
WWW: http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~empgdca/
If God had meant us to be naked, we would have been born that way.
If God had intended Man to Walk, He would have given him Feet.
If God had intended Man to Smoke, He would have set him on Fire.
Martin East
Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: In article <DqExH...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
: >To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
: >before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.
: OK. Try this on for size:
: According to the bible, only humans have souls. So at some point our
: ape-like ancestors either developed sufficiently to become suitable
: vessels for a soul, or "soulfulness" developed as a consequence of
: intelligence and emotions. Pick either, it doesn't matter.
: So now we have the first humans, who promptly committed sin (being
: only human). They were therefore the first (sinful) humans to
: die. It was *human* death that didn't exist before original sin.
But this explaination is complicated. The Bible tells us that the truth
is simple.
: IIRC, this is how C.S. Lewis dealt with this issue.
It does not mean that he is correct.
I's rather trust what God says than what C.S. Lewis said.
: Paul.
: --
: Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
: +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
: Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
: Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.
Martin East
Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
: djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:
: >One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
: >opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.
: Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't REALLY
: support the bible." or even better "The Bible does not really support
: creationism"?
: Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The
: religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
: that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
: biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
: Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.
True : Christians often find a problem with science conflicting with the Bible.
I as a Christian throw away any scientific "foundation" which undermines the
truth in the Bible. God's word comes first.
Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver? Then you must agree that anything which
undermines the Gospel comes from Satan. Evoulution is a clever plan, it was
also Satan's plan to bury Darwin under the floor of Westminster abbey, to
undermine the church. That was a great downfall of the church, and it has never
recovered to this day.
: Frank
: Love, Peace and Joy in Jesus
: *************************************
: Frank Lane
: la...@enterprise.net
: http://homepages.enterprise.net/lane
: *************************************
Martin East
Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
: >Science is a tool which we use to help us in this world. Our extremely
: >limited understanding cannot allow us to make rash decisions based on
: >what we see as fact, because there are so many holes in it all.
: Maybe science is full of holes, but its still the best tool we have. Both
: ignorance and religion have a very poor history as the basis for decision
: making.
: Leaders of a number of religions (including Christianity) have told
: followers to march on an enemy much better armed than they were because
: God would protect them. Take a look at the history of the Crusades
: for some examples.
: >All these evolutionary arguments can only really stand when the
: >unification theory which links all the existing theories together (from
: >all sciences) is found.
: >Until we have this complete knowledge about how things relate to one
: >another it will be extremely difficult to make *any* factual judgement
: >on the world we live in.
: You seem to be arguing that we can't know anything until we know
: everything. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I know the sky
: is blue, but I don't know everything.
We can make relative statements : the sky is blue to you. But what
about a snake? is it blue to a snake?
: >Such things as the speed of light argument etc, fossils and stuff all
: >fall into this easy to define category as mere conjectures of what is
: >actually out there.
: I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say here. This vagueness
: makes arguing against it like trying to stab fog.
: >Gravity - for instance has the power to distort time , and so make
: >light bend. What we see we cannot believe unless we view it from another
: >time frame too (point in space) - surely.
: Umm. Surely not. Please try to learn what relativity *actually* says
: before trying to use it in support of your position.
: > Why does the world look 5 billion yrs old? It Doesn't, it looks 6000
: > yrs old.
: Which bits of the world look 6,000 years old to you, and how can you
: tell?
How can you tell they are 5 billion yrs. I stand by my Bible and what it
says, the world was created in 6 days, not 6 billion years.
: >Fossils date rocks <-> Rocks date fossils. - A little catch 22.
: >Dating methods are scientifically proven to be false, by the laws which
: >science approves. The main one being the relative scale one.
: Sorry? I'm not familiar with the relative scale law. And dating is not
: as circular as you suppose. There are a network of dating methods, all
: of which re-inforce each other, and all of which ultimately rest on
: basic physics which can be observed today. Carbon dating, dendrochronology,
: diffusion of water into chipped flint, all these things give a consistent
: picture of the age of the earth, and all say it is a few billion years old.
: >Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
: >One theory should not really be put above another.
: I have a theory that the sky is pink. You will of course give equal
: consideration to this theory, despite scientific consensus that the sky
: is in fact blue.
But what does God say, he created it.
: In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
: year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
: and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
: waiting.
In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.
Creation is about God, and God is about life!
I am sure the evidence for + against exists , but, thats not what I want to
get bogged down with. The fact of the matter is that God created the world,
and us, and that we sinned, and will die because of that
... thats what really matters.
: --
: Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
: +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
: Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
: Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.
Martin East
Dave Spence (djs...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: 24p$s...@news.enterprise.net>
: Organization: The University of York, UK
: Distribution:
: Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: : In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
: : djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:
: : >One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
: : >opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.
: : Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't
: : REALLY support the bible." or even better "The Bible does not really
: : support creationism"?
: YES ! I see you point. Your rewording is actually much closer to
: the point I was trying to make. I think I made a bit of a gaffe there !
: : Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The
: : religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
: : that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
: : biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
: : Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.
: Absolutely. If you take a view of the creation story as being allegorical,
: you can gain a lot from reading it. In other words, just because it can't
: be taken literally doesn't mean that it hasn't any theological
: significance. In fact it has GREAT significance as it sets up the
: relationship between us and God. The fact that God took longer than 144
: hours to create the world does not alter the fact that He created it which
: was the main point of Genesis 1.
But it dilutes the power and the absolute soverignty of God, this is
what Satan wants, it will make us weaker if we accept Satan's deceptions.
God wants us to believe what is written not what us humans think!
: Peace,
: Dave Spence
Martin East
In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk> you wrote:
: Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : : net> <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: : : Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:56 GMT
: : : Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
: : : X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
: : : Lines: 17
: : : In article <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:
: : : > This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
: : : > only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
: : : > YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
: : : > Evolution in favour of God's word.
: : : With all due respect, you appear to have discarded God's word in
: : : favour of a conjectural interpretation. There is *absolutely*
: : : *nothing* in the bible to justify your making *any* comment
: : : about evolution, for or against.
: : To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
: : before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.
: Actually I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that man
I know I've already replied but...
The evidence that I put forward is Jesus. He lives forever.
: would have lived forever even if he had not sinned. Have you read the bit
: were God states that He doesn't want them to eat "of the tree of life and
: live forever". Furthermore what about animals, they die - are they under
: the judgment of sin as well.
Yes, it is all the symptoms of the fall, so is rape, fear, hatred, etc.
: Have you ever considered that if evolution is complete rubbish and the
: world really was created in 6-days and is only 6000 years old then there
: must be some MAJOR deception going on. It is not just evolution which
Satan is not stupid, he will use every device at his disposal to trick
humans. Evolution is a clever plan which makes us question the truth in the
Bible - Satan is deciving many.
I am blowing the trumpet to alert the city :)
: One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
: opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible. If you read Genesis
The Bible supports creation...
{other long stuff cut}
Martin East
John Chapman (jo...@purley.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: writes
:
: >
: >Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
: >One theory should not really be put above another.
: There speaks a non scientist if ever there was one. Science is about
: describing systematically and making predictions based upon that
: description. What Science manages to do quite neatly is to make
: predictions which can be shown to be accurate, or at least as accurate
: as is required within a given domain and a given circumstance. The
: problem inherent in creationism as with all similar esoteric theories is
: that they have no power to predict. A theory has value only if it can be
Predict: Yes, if God did create the world then Revelations is to happen,
surely thats
a pretty good prediction.
: used to predict. So theories that have a proven track record of
: prediction are most certainly to be put above those that have no such
: track record.
And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
of prediction also!
: >I suppose I am
: >wrong to push creationism. I just wanted to give others the peace of
: >mind I find I get with this. I cannot believe that Jesus would
: >send me to church to knock down my faith, only to build me up. Many
: >others who I have met (I think all) think similarly and I enjoy
: >renewed strength from what I have come into contact with.
: >But I suppose
: >the only real thing which really matters
: >is that we definately know is that Jesus is alive now
: I have never had any problem with a conflict between Science and Faith,
: your problem is a lack of understanding of science not of faith. My
: problem is that I do not believe the bible as literal truth in the same
: way that I do not believe science as literal truth.
:
Does it not make everything in your faith a bit tennuous though (bad spelling)
: --
: John Chapman
: jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
Steven Carr
on Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:29, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote :
>Steven Carr (ca...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>: I'm still waiting for details of this conference and details of these
>: 'top scientists'.
>I'm still waiting to ask my friend for the details.
Any word yet on this conference in 1980 where evolution was debunked
by top scientists?
Paul Wright
In article <Dqq2w...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
>: religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
>: that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
>: biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
>: Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.
>True : Christians often find a problem with science conflicting with the Bible.
>I as a Christian throw away any scientific "foundation" which undermines the
>truth in the Bible. God's word comes first.
Yes, but science is not a conspiracy against God, as you seem to
suggestin some of your postings. Some scientists are Christians, some
aren't. Nothing is proved by quoting numbers on this, either for or
against Christianity, or for or against Science.
>Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver?
Yes.
>Then you must agree that anything which undermines the Gospel comes
>from Satan.
Not sure really, I think he'd approve of the idea of undermining but
I don't know how he works so the idea "he is directly involved in all
undermining of the gospel" is not something I can be sure of
agreeing with. If by "comes from Satan" you mean he approves, then I
agree.
>Evoulution is a clever plan, it was
>also Satan's plan to bury Darwin under the floor of Westminster abbey, to
>undermine the church.
Buried him under pillar supporting the roof did they? There's
Satanic cunning for you. Better get the builders in.
Seriously, the Gospel is not concerned with the method of creation:
it is the good news that Christ died for us and was raised. IMHO
evolution can say nothing to undermine this.
I don't really know much about evolution as a theory but the
cosmological evidence for an old universe is quite convincing, and is
in keeping with theories tested by experiment. It is of course
possible that the universe was created to appear old but I don't see
why God would play this sort of trick on humans. If he has given us
the ability to find things out about his universe, why would he put
this great big tripwire across the path of this ability? Einstein
wrote that God is subtle but not malicious and I tend to agree with
him.
But having said that, I could be wrong. My point is that it doesn't
make any difference to the message of the gospel either way.
>: Frank
>Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science
Paul
>`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
> the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes
"Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study tires
the body." :-)
PS Long signatures are considered impolite.
--
Paul Wright, Churchill College, Cambridge | NatSci 1B Advanced Physics
http://tickle.chu.cam.ac.uk/~pw201/ | pw...@hermes.cam.ac.uk, FFPGP
K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON
DEn...@cee.hw.ac.uk> <4m1sdo$e...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <Dqq3o...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: : In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
: : In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
: : year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
: : and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
: : waiting.
: In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
: came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.
Another one for the 'I don't believe it' file?
Great Evangelist he may be. Creationist he may be.
But where is his Scientific basis for the statement that 90% of dating
methods indicate a young earth? If 51% of dating methods indicated a young
earth you can be sure scientists would be talking about the uncertainty of
the age of the earth. If 75% indicated a younng earth, the scientists
would be talking about the probability of a young earth and some dating
anomalies.
When an evangelist tells me about the Bible I am more likely to believe
him and if I am not sure, I take his statements as true unless I have good
reason not to.
When an evangelist talks about science my reaction is likely to be the
opposite. When an evangelist talks about scientific proof that science got
it wrong
Chorus
I don't believe it.
Kathy HH
Paul Wheeler
> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says
> It does not mean that he is correct.
> I's rather trust what God says than what C.S. Lewis said.
Perhaps you mean "what your teachers have told you God says". I`d sooner
trust CS Lewis than your teachers myself. Though I wouldn`t take either
of them totally uncritically `as gospel`. That would be idolatry.
Tony Wheeler
Dave Spence
David Aldridge wrote
>Just a point,
>Dave Spence wrote:
>> One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
>> opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible. If you read Genesis
>> chapter 1 you will see where God creates the animals and then man. In
>> Genesis 2:18 He creates man first and then the animals as helpers. This is
>> due to the fact that Genesis 2 is taken from a different creation story,
>> possibly an earlier one than in Genesis 1.
>As I understand it, the Genesis 2 story is an explanation in more detail
>of specific aspects of Genesis 1. Genesis 2 actually says that when God
>brought man to the garden, he brought the animals he "had" made to Adam
>for naming, and no suitable "helper" could be found. i.e., the animals
>were pre-existant to Adam. This *is* consistent IMO. That is not to say
>that I think the Genesis passage is necessarily the "literal truth", but
>it *does* seem to be consistent.
Fair point. Here's the quote;
Genesis 2:18-19 (RSV) "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man
should be alone, I will make him a helper fit for him'. So out of the ground
the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air,
and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever
the man called every living creature that was its name".
I think it depends on which version of the bible you have. I can see
that reading the NIV would give a slightly diffferent view than this but
in the RSV (which is a good translation from Hebrew) it is clear that in
this passage God made man first and then the animals.
>> There is actually a THIRD
>> creation story that was held by the ancient Hebrews where God created
>> the Earth after defeating a chaos monster called Rahab (some texts
>> Leviathan). There is only the barest traces of the this story in the bible
>> - see Psalm 89 and Job 23. I'm not sure if they're the exact chapters - I
>> don't have a bible on me at the mo'. There is also a trace of this story
>> somewhere in Isiah.
>I'd be interested more in this story if the bible gave it in more detail.
>However, I can't find much there. Can you find the references and give
>them along with your interpretations. It seems to me that the Ps 89 passage
>doesn't refer to creation when it speaks of Rahab, but just of the might
>of God to be able crush some (fearful to the humans) opponent.
No, there isn't much of it left in the Bible. I think theologically, the
ancient Hebrews didn't hold it in high asteem, as a creature powerful to
fight a war against God would have created theological problems for a
strict monotheistic religion such as theirs. Afterall, as far as I'm aware
it was only a myth and nothing to take too seriously. I stumbled across
this story in a couple of books I read:
Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement
- Paul Fiddes.
Escaping from Fundamentalism - James Barr (SCM Press)
The story of Rahab is described in much better detail in these two books.
The latter is still in print and has a whole chapter devoted to the
subject of creation and evolution from a biblical perspective. It is quite
interesting and illuminating. Fiddes' book describes the tale much better
but I'm not sure whether it is still in print - I borrowed the copy I have
from a friend here at York. It is (as the title suggests) primarily a book
on the atonement but goes into reasonable detail about the story of Rahab
- far more than Barr's book. If you are interested in it, and need to know
the publisher, email me and I will find out for you as I don't know it off
the top of my head.
>>How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:
>>
>> "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
>> against the rock".
>>
<SNIP>
>I think this (as with many problem quotes) is taken out of context, and if
>you read the whole Psalm you find that this attitude is not what is being
>advocated as a general way to live.
I agree (Even though, it hardly brings to mind ideas of love and
forgiveness, even when taken with the rest of the Psalm, but I take your
point). The point I was trying to make, though, was that by insisting on a
literal interpretation on everything in the Bible, you can achieve some
very erroneous results. I pointed out some weeks ago that I had seen some
Christians justify the holocaust, taking quotes from the Bible out of
context - read Joshua, for example (sorry for treading over old ground
here, folks). The point I tried to make was that not all passages in the
Bible have equal theological significance, for example:
I mentioned Ezekiel20:25-26;
"Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by
which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very
gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might
horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord."
Compare the above to:
John1:14
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth;
we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father"; or
John3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever
believes in him should not perish but have eternal life".
If we truly take the Bible literally, word for word, as if God dictated it
to the writers, as so many proponents of creationism say they do, then we
must take each passage on equal value. This is not a problem for me as I
do not hold to a fundametalist interpretation of scripture (not that you
wouldn't have guessed !). The point is, though, that some parts of the
Bible have a far greater significance than others. That does not mean that
they are void of theological value but that they don't impart as fuller
picture as others. Taking this point to the Genesis story, I believe that
it has profound significance but we don't need to take it literally in the
sense that we need to take John3:16 literally to appreciate this
significance.
>In the same way, the Genesis story
>(as a whole) hangs together very well and can be used for lots of different
>teaching points. I don't think it should be treated as a scientific
>treatise, but then if God is God, he could have done it in the literal way
>that the creationist camp argue. I also don't think evolution
>(abiogenesis,
>evolution, natural selection, etc) by chance is a reasonable alternative
>without God to start, maintain and guide the process. Either way, God is
>central to my thinking of creation, which should be the main point.
Couldn't agree more with you here !
To sum up, I agree with you on nearly all of the points you made here.
What I have being trying to show is that, by always insisting on a literal
interpretation of scripture, we can often get the wrong message or miss it
altogether. I don't believe, for a minute, that believing in creationism
would give you an erroneous impression of God or would harm your chances
of salvation. What I would say is that NOT taking it literally does not
mean you are not a Christian which I have heard in the past - although not
on THIS newsgroup, thank goodness!
I hope you don't take this posting as an attack on the Bible as that is not
what I intended, so forgive me if it came out that way.
Peace in Christ
Dave Spence
===============================================================================
David J. Spence = Visit the Christis Web
Postgraduate = Page
Department of Physics = http://www.york.ac.uk/~socs90
University of York =
djs...@unix.york.ac.uk = THE Christian magazine
===============================================================================
Paul Johnson
In article <Dqq2w...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
>Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver? Then you must agree that anything which
>undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.
Yes, you've almost got it. What you have not realised is that *Creationism*
was Satan's invention. By subverting a few religeous leaders (either by
simply corrupting them, or imbuing them with sinful pride), he has achieved
two goals:
1. Stop Christians from concentrating on the Word and the Will of God, and
distract them with lots of arguments about whether scientific evidence
or a literal interpretation of Genesis I should take precedence.
2. Make many non-Christians who might otherwise have found Jesus go away,
because Christianity "obviously" contradicts the facts.
This would be much easier for Satan, because tricking or subverting lots and
lots of scientists would be difficult, while doing the same thing to a few
preachers would be much easier and far more effective.
Paul.
Paul Johnson
In article <Dqq39...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
>Predict: Yes, if God did create the world then Revelations is to happen,
>surely thats
>a pretty good prediction.
Unfortunately people have been predicting that the Book of Revelation (note:
not "Revelations") is about to happen for a fraction under 2,000 years. So
far they have been 100% wrong.
To qualify as a testable prediction, there has to be a time when we can
decide whether it was true or false. Revelation is not a testable prediction
because it has not got a time limit. No matter how long we wait, we can never
mark it false because it still might happen tomorrow.
>> [Science makes testable predictions, many of which are correct]
>And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
>of prediction also!
Care to cite examples? Remember that to match the predictions made by
science, an example must fulfil the following criteria:
1. Specific. It must be possible to tell beforehand what event is predicted.
Matching events to prophecies after the fact does not count.
2. Surprising. "It will rain on Tuesday" is not surprising. "My house will
be struck by lightning on Tuesday" is surprising.
3. Not part of a scattershot. If you make 100 predictions, each of which
has a 1% chance of occuring, then you can expect to see about 1 which
comes true. By conveniently forgetting the other 99 you can look like
a pretty good prophet.
Richard Herring
Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: True : Christians often find a problem with science conflicting with the Bible.
: I as a Christian throw away any scientific "foundation" which undermines the
: truth in the Bible. God's word comes first.
Indeed. If two apparent truths are in conflict, then one of them must be
false, or you have misunderstood at least one of them. To determine which
is false, or where your misunderstanding lies, you have to evaluate them
objectively. It's no use starting from the preconception that one of them
"must" be true. It might help to start by considering the unspoken
assumption here that the Bible was dictated to St. Paul (in 16th century
English, naturally) by the Almighty, and that consequently every word in it
is "literally true", whatever that might mean.
: Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver? Then you must agree that anything which
: undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.
Dodgy logic there. As a scientist, you should know better. You appear to
be saying:
(1) Satan is a deceiver.
(2) All deceit undermines the Gospel.
(3) Therefore all which undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.
Even given the premises (I'll leave it to others to argue about the
unspoken one which precedes (1), but (2) looks distinctly shaky)
the conclusion simply does not follow.
: Evoulution is a clever plan, it was
: also Satan's plan to bury Darwin under the floor of Westminster abbey, to
: undermine the church. That was a great downfall of the church, and it has never
: recovered to this day.
I have this mental picture of something seeping out from Darwin's remains
and gradually infiltrating the crumbly stonework until the Abbey eventually
collapses. I'm sorry, but it's so funny I can't take it seriously.
Darwin proposed a theory, since improved upon by others, which makes
testable predictions. It may be true or it may be false. If it's false,
then it can be proved so by standard scientific methods, without recourse
to dogma. If true, well then, it's true; from a religious perspective,
presumably you can learn from it something more about the relationship
between God and his creation. If it also conflicts with the
*literal* interpretation of a creation myth, then that myth is not
*literally* true. Since the purpose of myth is not the expression of literal
truth, that is totally unimportant.
--
Richard Herring | richard...@gecm.com | Speaking for myself
GEC-Marconi Research Centre | Not the one on TV.
David Aldridge
Martin East wrote:
> I am sure the evidence for + against exists , but, thats not what I want to
> get bogged down with. The fact of the matter is that God created the world,
> and us, and that we sinned, and will die because of that
> ... thats what really matters.
But Martin, I don't think anyone *here* is arguing that God did not
create the world! They are just arguing that our understanding of
the ancient aramaic word (which we take to mean day) may not actually
have meant to signify a literal 24 hour period.
While it's quite OK for you to believe that God created the world in
6 x 24 hour periods, and that if God is God, he could have done it in
6 microseconds instead, that doesn't mean that everyone else should.
Personally, I believe in a God who could have done it in the 6 days,
but I also see some pretty good evidence that the universe is old.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. What matters is that people
can be saved from their sins through Christ's death on the cross and
subsequent resurrection. Whether I believe in evolution or 6-day
creation does *not* alter this wonderful fact.
Yours,
Martin East
K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON (K.Haigh-H...@bradford.ac.uk) wrote:
: DEn...@cee.hw.ac.uk> <4m1sdo$e...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <Dqq3o...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: : : In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
: : : In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
: : : year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
: : : and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
: : : waiting.
: : In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
: : came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.
: Another one for the 'I don't believe it' file?
: Great Evangelist he may be. Creationist he may be.
: But where is his Scientific basis for the statement that 90% of dating
: methods indicate a young earth? If 51% of dating methods indicated a young
: earth you can be sure scientists would be talking about the uncertainty of
: the age of the earth. If 75% indicated a younng earth, the scientists
: would be talking about the probability of a young earth and some dating
: anomalies.
Have a look on the web, a good site to start from is:
www.christiananswers.net
: When an evangelist tells me about the Bible I am more likely to believe
: him and if I am not sure, I take his statements as true unless I have good
: reason not to.
: When an evangelist talks about science my reaction is likely to be the
: opposite. When an evangelist talks about scientific proof that science got
: it wrong
: Chorus
: I don't believe it.
: Kathy HH
--
Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science
: Heriot-Watt University
Email: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk : Edinburgh (Scotland)
______________________________________________________
(Advertising Manager for "Watt's On" student newspaper.)
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
(If you want to place an ad in this local Edinburgh )
(paper please E-Mail for details. )
(______________________________________________________)
`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes
<>< - Its quite good having my creator as a friend.
Martin East
Paul Wheeler (peew...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
: > ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says
: > It does not mean that he is correct.
: > I'd rather trust what God says than what C.S. Lewis said.
: Perhaps you mean "what your teachers have told you God says". I`d sooner
: trust CS Lewis than your teachers myself. Though I wouldn`t take either
: of them totally uncritically `as gospel`. That would be idolatry.
: Tony Wheeler
I'd sooner trust in God's word as being what he said.
Steven Carr
on 1 May 1996 17:08:38 GMT, K.Haigh-H...@bradford.ac.uk
(K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) wrote :
>Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
<skip>
>: In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
>: came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.
>Another one for the 'I don't believe it' file?
>But where is his Scientific basis for the statement that 90% of dating
>methods indicate a young earth?
Strange as it feels to agree with Martin East, 90 %, if not more, of
dating methods will give a much younger Earth than 4.5 Billion years.
Different parts of the Earth are at different ages. The oceans are
relatively young. One dating method (based, IIRC, on the concentration
of aluminium ) gives a date for the oceans of about 100 years old.
Dating mountains like Everest will also not give you a 4.5 Gigayear
date as they are also young.
Naturally, these young ages are only *minimum* ages of the Earth. The
real age of the entire Earth is bigger and there are dating techniques
which can show that.
BTW, Where was this conference in 1980? Who were these top scientists?
Why did they feel evolution was debunked?
.
Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com
Gun,foot,aim,fire!
John Chapman
In article <Dqq39...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
writes
>
>Predict: Yes, if God did create the world then Revelations is to happen,
>surely thats
>a pretty good prediction.
Could you please explain the theory that enables one to predict the
content of Revelation, and then measure whether or not the prediction
was correct
>
>
>: used to predict. So theories that have a proven track record of
>: prediction are most certainly to be put above those that have no such
>: track record.
>
>And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
>of prediction also!
I am afraid I cannot find any predictions in the scientific sense. There
are many prophecies bu these are not the same as scientific predictions.
>
>Does it not make everything in your faith a bit tennuous though (bad
spelling)
Not in the least, I find having to go into mental contortions to explain
a passage from the bible in literal terms is far more tenuous that
seeing it as an explanation of some truth using the language of myth and
imagery.
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
John Chapman
In article <Dqq3o...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
writes
>
>: You seem to be arguing that we can't know anything until we know
>: everything. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I know the sky
>: is blue, but I don't know everything.
>
>We can make relative statements : the sky is blue to you. But what
>about a snake? is it blue to a snake?
A snake, so far as I am aware has no language and therefore cannot
describe the colour of the sky, however were he a scientist he would
probably be able to measure the frequency of blue light and come to
roughly the same value as we do.
>
>
>: Which bits of the world look 6,000 years old to you, and how can you
>: tell?
>
>How can you tell they are 5 billion yrs. I stand by my Bible and what it
>says, the world was created in 6 days, not 6 billion years.
Unfortunately a day is defined in terms of the relationship between the
sun and the earth. If you really want to believe Genesis then when in
ch1 v2 he created light, he had not yet created the lamps in the
firmament which divided day from night. This does not come until v14
thus all the intervening creations were made in time periods which had
no defined length and hence could have been anywhere from about 5 hours
to 5exp50000 hours or more. I am afraid you cannot measure the length of
a day until the means of defining have been created.
>: I have a theory that the sky is pink. You will of course give equal
>: consideration to this theory, despite scientific consensus that the sky
>: is in fact blue.
>
>But what does God say, he created it.
Perhaps you can point to this reference. In my copy of Genesis it is
described merely as light. Or has God given you a special message on
this topic.
>
>: In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
>: year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
>: and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
>: waiting.
>
>In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
>came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.
the figure of 6000 years came from Bishop Usher I seem to remember
>
>Creation is about God, and God is about life!
>
>I am sure the evidence for + against exists , but, thats not what I
want to
>get bogged down with. The fact of the matter is that God created the
world,
>and us, and that we sinned, and will die because of that
>... thats what really matters.
That is perhaps a view of what the creation story tells us but there is
no need therefore to take the essential truth that 'God created' and try
to use the imagary by which this message was transmitted down the ages
as a rational explanation of how God performed the creation
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
David Aldridge
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Martin East wrote:
> >And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
> >of prediction also!
> Care to cite examples? Remember that to match the predictions made by
> science, an example must fulfil the following criteria:
> 1. Specific. It must be possible to tell beforehand what event is predicted.
> Matching events to prophecies after the fact does not count.
> 2. Surprising. "It will rain on Tuesday" is not surprising. "My house will
> be struck by lightning on Tuesday" is surprising.
> 3. Not part of a scattershot. If you make 100 predictions, each of which
> has a 1% chance of occuring, then you can expect to see about 1 which
> comes true. By conveniently forgetting the other 99 you can look like
> a pretty good prophet.
While I don't really agree 100% with what Martin writes, many of the
prophesies in the bible were fairly specific and did/have come true.
As an example, one prophesy told that the Messiah, the King of the
Jews, would be born in Bethlehem. (It's specific - point 1)
When the magi came from the east, Herod's men looked up this prophesy
and sent them there. The result was surprising (point 2) because it
was a very small town, and the messiah was to be a king, hence not
a very likely choice. (Jerusalem would have been more sensible).
There were no prophesies which told of other places the messiah was
to be born. Hence it meets point 3 too.
Does this satisfy you?
Probably not, if you're feeling cynical. However, if you look at all
the OT prophesies concerning the messiah (written well before Jesus)
and then look at the likelihood of them all being fulfilled in one
man, we have probabilities *against* greater than that of life arising
from nothing simply by chance! :-)
Satisfied yet?
No?!!! Oh well, there's no pleasing some people! ;-)
David Aldridge
Dave Spence wrote:
> David Aldridge wrote[snip...]
> Fair point. Here's the quote;
> Genesis 2:18-19 (RSV)
> I think it depends on which version of the bible you have. I can see
> that reading the NIV would give a slightly diffferent view than this but
> in the RSV (which is a good translation from Hebrew) it is clear that in
> this passage God made man first and then the animals.
You are right of course, and we would need a good greek translator to make
certain how it should be written. I thought, since the NIV is more modern
than the standard RSV, would have it slightly more correct, but either way
it doesn't alter either of our main points! :-)
Thanks for the references. I'll keep them on file for future reference
(when I have time and energy to seek them out!)
> To sum up, I agree with you on nearly all of the points you made here.
> What I have being trying to show is that, by always insisting on a literal
> interpretation of scripture, we can often get the wrong message or miss it
> altogether. I don't believe, for a minute, that believing in creationism
> would give you an erroneous impression of God or would harm your chances
> of salvation. What I would say is that NOT taking it literally does not
> mean you are not a Christian which I have heard in the past - although not
> on THIS newsgroup, thank goodness!
Sounds good. It's always nice to agree! :-) You are right here and I agree
with you wholeheartedly.
> I hope you don't take this posting as an attack on the Bible as that is not
> what I intended, so forgive me if it came out that way.
Of course not. And of course you'd be forgiven if needed - but it's not in
this case! :-)
David Shephard
A lot of the argument for and against evolution or creationism rest on
how long God took to create the Universe. If God took 6 Earth days then
creationism must be the prefered option. But how long is one of God's
days? I am happy to believe that to God a day could be longer than 1
Earth day. If we lived on the Moon a day would last nearly a month.
Robert Billing quoted a Jewish joke in a separate thread. I quote it
below:
> I'm just beginning to wonder if counting days before the sun is not
> the *first* recorded Jewish joke, perpitrated with God's connivance on
> generations of gentiles who take themselves far too seriously. Let's
> face it, the sequence could well have gone like this...
>
> (Apologies in advance to all my Jewish friends, including the one who
> told me an earlier version of this. I've just jazzed it up a bit)
>
> God: Hey, Moshe, we do the first bit today, you write down about
> where I create it all.
>
> Moses (Puts down cream cheese bagel): Ok, where we start?
>
> God: In the beginning I created...
>
> Moses: How long this all take then?
>
> God: About 1.4 E 10 years.
>
> Moses: How you suppose I write that in ancient Hebrew? We haven't even
> got a positional number system, let alone floating point.
>
> God: So? You got a word for time?
>
> Moses: I got YOM.
>
> God: So what that mean?
>
> Moses: Well, it mean a day, or a year, or the reign of a king, it goes
> with the context.
>
> God: So you got a word that means 1.4E10 years. Use it.
>
> Moses: I just had a thought. Someday someone's got to translate this
> into gentile. Won't they think it only took a week?
>
> God: Not if they notice we don't put the sun in until half way.
>
> Moses: But if they don't they could make complete idiots of
> themselves.
>
> God: The boy's catching on.
>
> --
> I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
> lover, I live in England, near 0:46W 51:22N. "How strange-
> indeed, how perverse- to weep for a machine! Even one with as complex
> and temperamental a personality as the Mark I..." Arthur C Clarke
Can any Hebrew scholar comment on the meaning of the word "YOM". If the
Hebrew for a day is so flexible, then 6 days (YOMs) gives plenty of time
for the Big Bang and evolution. All guided by our loving God, the
creator of the Universe.
--
David Shephard, Avionics Lab. | Tel: +44 1245 242039
GEC-Marconi Research Centre | Fax: +44 1245 242003
GEC-Marconi Ltd, Great Baddow | Email: david.s...@gecm.com
Chelmsford,Essex. UK CM2 8HN | GEC sponsors the bandwidth not my opinion.
Paul Wheeler
Stephen Carr astonished me by saying :
> Different parts of the Earth are at different ages. The oceans are
> relatively young. One dating method (based, IIRC, on the concentration
> of aluminium ) gives a date for the oceans of about 100 years old.
No oceans until 1890? Someone must have forgotten to tell Nelson, then.
Have I flipped and missed something important?
Tony Wheeler
Steven Carr
on Sat, 4 May 1996 18:54:36 GMT, peew...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Paul
Wheeler") wrote :
>Stephen Carr astonished me by saying :
<spelling flame on>
My name is spelled with a v
<spelling flame off>
>> Different parts of the Earth are at different ages. The oceans are
>> relatively young. One dating method (based, IIRC, on the concentration
>> of aluminium ) gives a date for the oceans of about 100 years old.
>No oceans until 1890? Someone must have forgotten to tell Nelson, then.
>Have I flipped and missed something important?
Not really. It is based on the amount of aluminium going into the
oceans each year and the concentration of aluminium in seawater.
Divide one into another and you get a date of about 100 years for the
oceans.
This lets us conclude that not all dating methods give accurate ages.
Many give just a minimum age. The real age can be much older.
The aluminium in the seawater is only about 100 years old as it is
constantly recycled, but the oceans are much older.
This is why saying 90 percent of dating methods give a young earth is
not worth much.
Frank Lane
In article <Dqq3u...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
>:The fact that God took longer than 144
>: hours to create the world does not alter the fact that He created it which
>: was the main point of Genesis 1.
>
>But it dilutes the power and the absolute soverignty of God, this is
>what Satan wants, it will make us weaker if we accept Satan's deceptions.
>
>God wants us to believe what is written not what us humans think!
There are those who might suggest that it is your literalism in understanding
this passage which dilutes the power and absolute sovereignty of God.
Your understanding, and mine, of what is written is affected by a whole bunch
of human considerations.
Do you believe that when you drink the wine of Communion you are drinking they
very blood that flowed from our Saviour's veins on the cross? And that the
bread (or wafer - I don't know which you use) you eat is actual human flesh? I
rather doubt it. Yet that is what is written.
How many eyes and hands do you have left, for if you insist on your own
statement above you would have to obey the command, if your eye offend you,
pluck it out etc.
Why choose only one passage to be literal about and ignore the others.
God does not need you or me to defend his sovereignty. He is sovereign and
that fact cannot be diluted by your literalism or my ability to recognise that
Genesis 1 - 3 is not a scientific but a doctrinal statement.
Frank Lane
Oliver Elphick
Frank Lane wrote:
>
> In article <Dqq3u...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
> >:The fact that God took longer than 144
> >: hours to create the world does not alter the fact that He created it which
> >: was the main point of Genesis 1.
> >
> >But it dilutes the power and the absolute soverignty of God, this is
> >what Satan wants, it will make us weaker if we accept Satan's deceptions.
> >
> >God wants us to believe what is written not what us humans think!
>
> There are those who might suggest that it is your literalism in understanding
> this passage which dilutes the power and absolute sovereignty of God.
> Why choose only one passage to be literal about and ignore the others.
I'm sure that you realise the difference between poetry, history,
apocalyptic books and so on. When Jesus talked about plucking out
an eye he was using a dramatic figure of speech, not meant to be taken
literally - otherwise all Christians would be blind! A book of the
Bible presents itself in certain terms and is to be taken on those
terms.
It may be that our particular world view causes us to assume that
something is meant 'literally' (even that word could mean different
things to different people) when its writer did not so intend.
However, Genesis presents itself as plain history; there is no
obvious indication of any other intention. In fact, there are
certain formulas in it which seem to show that it is a set of annals
handed down and edited together (traditionally, by Moses):
Gen 1:1 - 2:3 an account given by God (the only possible source!)
to Adam, summarised and terminated by Gen 2:4
Gen 2:5 - 4:26 an account of events in Adam's life, summarised and
terminated by Gen 5:1-2
Gen 5:3 - 9:29 an account of history from Adam's death to Noah's
by Noah's sons, summarised and terminated by
Gen 10:1
and so on...
The 6000 years of Archbishop Usher's dating are achieved by adding
together the lengths of time from birth of a father to the birth of
his son. It is at least interesting to note that Methusaleh appears
to have died in or just before the flood. (With a made up set of
times I would guess a 40% chance of his appearing to live through
it without his being in the ark.)
Several points and replies -
1. 'A day is not meant to be taken literally as 24 hours.'
The explicit formula "The evening and the morning" seem to
contradict this.
2. 'Since a day is defined as a revolution of the earth, and its
illumination by the sun, the term has no meaning before the
creation of the sun (fourth day).'
A day is clearly intended to be taken as what it is now - a
period of 24 hours, divided approximately equally into two
periods of light and darkness. God creates light before
anything else, and this light appears to have a direction but
no physical source until the fourth day. There is an obvious
theological point here, which is summarised by 1 John 1:5:
"...God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." The
writer is thinking in earthbound terms, whereas the critics who
raise this point are looking from a different viewpoint.
3. 'God created everything and holds it together, but he did this by
guiding evolution.'
God looked at everything that he had made and saw that it was
good. If the world developed by evolution, then all the death
and competition that we see in the world of plants and animals
was present from the start. However, the state of things as
they are now is clearly the result of sin (Romans 8:20-23:
"... the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together
until now ...") and at the last day will be different (Isaiah
11:6-9 "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
with the young kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling
shall lie down together...they shall not hurt or destroy in all
my holy mountain..."). I cannot believe that God looked at the
evolving earth postulated by evolutionary theory and said that
it was good!
4. 'If the stars were created 6000 years ago, their light
could not yet have reached here.'
It is clearly possible for God to create the light between the
stars and the earth as well as the stars themselves.
5. 'God doesn't deceive us, so the fossil record, that indicates an
evolutionary period of many millions of years, and the other
evidences of a very long development of the universe and the
earth must show that the evolutionary account is true.'
First, God is willing to deceive or have deceived those who are
not whole-heartedly his (1 Kings 22:22).
Second, we don't know what a properly finished, newly created
universe should look like. We've never made one!
Third, there are alternative explanations for the fossil record.
This is a very brief summary of the creation science explanation
as I understand it:
The earth was created with a vast envelope of water vapour,
which regulated the climate (consider the mammoths in Siberia)
and which did not fall as rain. The ground was watered by some
kind of underground circulation system, which no
longer exists. The flood was caused by the precipitation of most
of the water vapour and by seismic disturbances which broke up
the underground circulatory system. Most sedimentary layers
were laid down in the flood, and the large collections of fossils
result from their being overwhelmed together in this catastrophe.
The loss of the water-vapour envelope resulted in a drastic change
of climate and increased exposure to solar radiation which led
to an increase in harmful mutations and a consequent shortening
of lifespans.
The proponents of this view cite inconsistencies in geological
evidence which I do not have the knowledge to judge; on the other
hand, they present a self-consistent picture, which is more than
evolutionists will normally credit them with. Unfortunately,
they also have an apparent tendency to ignore contrary evidence
rather than to admit the difficulties that it presents, and this
damages their credibility.
The problem with accepting the modern view of the creation of the
world is that it weakens our trust in the reliability of scripture
and therefore weakens our view of sin. If Genesis 1 to 3 is not
a true historical account, then the account of the introduction
of sin is not historical. This will make us doubt the existence
of Satan, and therefore make us less on guard against him.
On the other hand, accepting the biblical account contradicts the
common view of things. This will make life difficult for anyone
in a post connected with research; it is also difficult if it appears
to contradict what we see around us.
There is a problem for anyone with a modern scientific education in
reconciling the biblical account with current thinking. At present
they seem to be irreconcilable. Therefore I will accept what the
bible says as history, rather than the modern account, because I think
that faith in God requires it. I may, of course, be misinterpreting
the bible. I'm sure that complete knowledge would show me that there
was no conflict between the historical parts of the bible and a true
'scientific' account.
--
Oliver Elphick ol...@enterprise.net
LFIX Ltd Tel/Fax: 01865 200200
Oxford, England Mobile: 0976 218316
Frank Lane
In article <318C5FFB...@enterprise.net>,
Oliver Elphick <ol...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>Frank Lane wrote:
>>
>> In article <Dqq3u...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East)
wrote:
>> >:The fact that God took longer than 144
>> >: hours to create the world does not alter the fact that He created it
which
>> >: was the main point of Genesis 1.
>> >
>> >But it dilutes the power and the absolute soverignty of God, this is
>> >what Satan wants, it will make us weaker if we accept Satan's deceptions.
>> >
>> >God wants us to believe what is written not what us humans think!
>>
>> There are those who might suggest that it is your literalism in
understanding
>> this passage which dilutes the power and absolute sovereignty of God.
>> ...
>> Why choose only one passage to be literal about and ignore the others.
>
>Bible presents itself in certain terms and is to be taken on those
>terms.
>
Exactly! And the first 11 chapters of Genesis deal with pre-historic matters.
Using your logic the English language came into being on the day that the work
on the tower of Babel was abandoned. If you look at the story of Babel as an
historic occasion and explain the diversity of languages by it you actually
miss the far more important spiritual truth that man's attempts to reach God
by his own efforts is doomed to failure. In this case the important point is
allegorised into a story in which Babylonian ziggurats might have been used to
illustrate the point. If you want to take the story literally that's fine by
me but I can't see how I weaken the sovereignty of God by believing it to be a
"parable".
Frank
Paul Wheeler
> <spelling flame on>
> My name is spelled with a v
> <spelling flame off>
Sorry.
Tony Wheeler
Robert Billing
In article <318C5FFB...@enterprise.net>
ol...@enterprise.net "Oliver Elphick" writes:
> 1. 'A day is not meant to be taken literally as 24 hours.'
>
> The explicit formula "The evening and the morning" seem to
> contradict this.
Since the word YOM can mean any period of time, and there is some
doubt over the translation of morning/evening (should it be
beginning/ending?) your point is rather weak and may in fact be an
artifact of translation. I'll only believe that there is anything in
this if you can argue unequvocally from the original Hebrew, without
recourse to the pointing.
> 2. 'Since a day is defined as a revolution of the earth, and its
> illumination by the sun, the term has no meaning before the
> creation of the sun (fourth day).'
>
> A day is clearly intended to be taken as what it is now - a
> period of 24 hours, divided approximately equally into two
> periods of light and darkness.
Not so, see above.
> 4. 'If the stars were created 6000 years ago, their light
> could not yet have reached here.'
>
> It is clearly possible for God to create the light between the
> stars and the earth as well as the stars themselves.
Yes, but why?
> 5. 'God doesn't deceive us, so the fossil record, that indicates an
> evolutionary period of many millions of years, and the other
> evidences of a very long development of the universe and the
> earth must show that the evolutionary account is true.'
>
> First, God is willing to deceive or have deceived those who are
> not whole-heartedly his (1 Kings 22:22).
So if a Scientist who studies the evidence for an old earth also
becomes a christian, he cannot be whole hearted? Your argument seems to
be "if he believes in the old earth, it is because he is deceived, he
is deceived because he is not whole hearted, which is because he
believes in the old earth". Don't waste it, enter it for the 200m
freestyle olympic circular argument.
> Second, we don't know what a properly finished, newly created
> universe should look like. We've never made one!
No but we can have a look at a very new one through the Hubble
Telescope.
> Third, there are alternative explanations for the fossil record.
> This is a very brief summary of the creation science explanation
> as I understand it:
>
> The earth was created with a vast envelope of water vapour,
> which regulated the climate (consider the mammoths in Siberia)
> and which did not fall as rain.
Why? Can we have some physics at this point.
The ground was watered by some
> kind of underground circulation system, which no
> longer exists.
1) Where are the remains of this? It would be akin to being unable to
find the entire London underground.
2) Is there anything in the bible to support this, or did you make it
up?
The flood was caused by the precipitation of most
> of the water vapour and by seismic disturbances which broke up
> the underground circulatory system. Most sedimentary layers
> were laid down in the flood, and the large collections of fossils
> result from their being overwhelmed together in this catastrophe.
Er, wouldn't that give young results to radioative dating?
> The proponents of this view cite inconsistencies in geological
> evidence which I do not have the knowledge to judge; on the other
> hand, they present a self-consistent picture,
No they don't. It has gaping holes in it, see above.
which is more than
> evolutionists will normally credit them with. Unfortunately,
> they also have an apparent tendency to ignore contrary evidence
> rather than to admit the difficulties that it presents, and this
> damages their credibility.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm asking you to produce it.
> There is a problem for anyone with a modern scientific education in
> reconciling the biblical account with current thinking. At present
> they seem to be irreconcilable. Therefore I will accept what the
> bible says as history, rather than the modern account, because I think
> that faith in God requires it. I may, of course, be misinterpreting
> the bible.
It doesn't, I think you are.
Robert Billing
In article <4mab39$s...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
paul.j...@gecm.com "Paul Johnson" writes:
> Care to cite examples? Remember that to match the predictions made by
> science, an example must fulfil the following criteria:
The prediction of the place of birth of Jesus is the most obvious one.
Steven Carr
on Sun, 05 May 1996 08:59:55 +0100, Oliver Elphick
<ol...@enterprise.net> wrote :
<skip>
> This is a very brief summary of the creation science explanation
> as I understand it:
> The earth was created with a vast envelope of water vapour,
> which regulated the climate (consider the mammoths in Siberia)
> and which did not fall as rain. The ground was watered by some
> kind of underground circulation system, which no
> longer exists. The flood was caused by the precipitation of most
> of the water vapour and by seismic disturbances which broke up
> the underground circulatory system. Most sedimentary layers
> were laid down in the flood, and the large collections of fossils
> result from their being overwhelmed together in this catastrophe.
> The loss of the water-vapour envelope resulted in a drastic change
> of climate and increased exposure to solar radiation which led
> to an increase in harmful mutations and a consequent shortening
> of lifespans.
>
> The proponents of this view cite inconsistencies in geological
> evidence which I do not have the knowledge to judge; on the other
> hand, they present a self-consistent picture, which is more than
> evolutionists will normally credit them with. Unfortunately,
> they also have an apparent tendency to ignore contrary evidence
> rather than to admit the difficulties that it presents, and this
> damages their credibility.
If this is self-consistent then we would expect the Bible to say the
water vapour envelope been lost.
PSALM 148
1. Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the
heavens: praise him in the heights.
2. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his
hosts.
3. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars
of light.
4. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that
be above the heavens.
5. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded,
and they were created.
6. He hath also established them for ever and ever: he
hath made a decree which shall not pass.
According to the Psalmist, there *are*, not *were*, waters above the
heavens and they have been established for ever and ever.
Creation science is not really Biblically based. It is very selective.
Alan Zanker
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4mab39$s...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
> paul.j...@gecm.com "Paul Johnson" writes:
>
>> Care to cite examples? Remember that to match the predictions made by
>> science, an example must fulfil the following criteria:
>
> The prediction of the place of birth of Jesus is the most obvious one.
But is there any evidence outside Matthew, Luke and John (a) that
Micah 5.2 is a prediction of the birthplace of the Messiah (b) that
Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem?
Alan
--
Alan Zanker | e-mail:al...@bittern.demon.co.uk
Leeds |
Frank Lane
>
>I'd sooner trust in God's word as being what he said.
>
Me too Martin! But we still have to make decisions about how to understand
God's word.
eg. When God created the snake did it have legs?
Does bread and wine literally become flesh and blood?
Is Babylon an ancient city or is she a prostitute?
When the allied forces entered Iraq should they have slaughtered all the
men, women and children.
Should you, in fact, actually be engaged in this discussion group because
God's Word says "Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in
the way that are contrary to the teaching *you have learned*. Keep away from
them!" (Romans 16:17-18)
I believe the Bible, Martin. I do not think that means I have to accept every
word as interpreted by 19th & 20th century culture.
Frank
Love, Peace and Joy in Jesus
Frank Lane
`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes
Ah, now we can see where you're coming from, Martin. A modern version of the
same proverb is "Ignorance is bliss".
Remember, though, that God was pleased with Solomon when he chose wisdom as
his gift and wisdom is praised throughout the book of Proverbs.
"How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
And fools hate knowledge"
(Prov. 1:22)
The opening chapters of Ecclesiastes are negative only to highlight the real
positive aspects.
"The advantage of knowledge is this:
That wisdom preserves the life of its possessor."
"Wisdom makes one wise man more powerful
Than ten rulers in a city"
(Both from Ecclesiates)
<>< - Its quite good having my creator as a friend.
Quite Good???
You should come and stand where I'm standing - it's marvelous!
Frank Lane
In article <4mdd7n$h...@soap.news.pipex.net>,
ca...@dial.pipex.com (Steven Carr) wrote:
>BTW, Where was this conference in 1980? Who were these top scientists?
>Why did they feel evolution was debunked?
>..
> Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com
>Gun,foot,aim,fire!
It comes to my mind that when this thread was started I posted a note saying
something to the effect of
"I wish you hadn't done that! Now we are going to have another long
interminable thread which gets us nowhere!"
I don't know whether it has got anyone anywhere but it's certainly been long
and fairly interminable.
Oliver Elphick
Frank Lane wrote:
>
> > A book of the
> >Bible presents itself in certain terms and is to be taken on those
> >terms.
> >
>
> Using your logic the English language came into being on the day that the work
> on the tower of Babel was abandoned.
English has developed from other languages over centuries. All Genesis
says is that people were divided up into different language groups
by God's intervention.
> If you look at the story of Babel as an
> historic occasion and explain the diversity of languages by it you actually
> miss the far more important spiritual truth that man's attempts to reach God
> by his own efforts is doomed to failure. In this case the important point is
> allegorised into a story in which Babylonian ziggurats might have been used to
> illustrate the point. If you want to take the story literally that's fine by
> me but I can't see how I weaken the sovereignty of God by believing it to be a
> "parable".
>
There is nothing in the text to indicate that the writer thinks it
is a parable. It is presented as straight history. The allegorical
points are of course valid any way.
John Chapman
In article <831296...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>, Robert Billing
<uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>> Care to cite examples? Remember that to match the predictions made by
>> science, an example must fulfil the following criteria:
>
> The prediction of the place of birth of Jesus is the most obvious one.
>
birth in Bethlehem to fulfil the prophecy and had to invent a totally
bogus census to explain why they were there.
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
Paul Wheeler
I think it is much simpler to recognise that Genesis is to teach religion
not science - so it is not more important that the science may be dated
than that the spelling is dated. (No vowels at that stage though there
are now in Hebrew).
Two bits of lore which I was given and which may be helpful :-
1 The Jews were ambivalent about the sun. In their opinion it was
too hot and gave you sunstroke. Psalms 121:5 "The LORD is thy keeper:
the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand. The sun shall not smite thee
by day" They thought that God had created the sun, but also that there
was something nasty about it - perhaps due to the worship of sun gods by
heathen nations round about.
The ideal would be light and warmth without the sun - which is the
arrangement in Revelations. Revelation 21:23 "And the city had no need
of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did
lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."
So, too, the more important and useful light was created first in the
Genesis account.
2 The earth was like two pudding basins on top of each other with
the rims together. The top one was blue (the firmament of heaven) with
stars and the sun and moon attached to the under side. Above this was
water, and there were doors which the Lord opened when it rained. Psalms
78:23 "Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the
doors of heaven."
The bottom pudding basin was the right way up. Sticking up in it was the
dry land, and round the edge and underneath was water. Exodus 20:4 Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth.
So when it rained, the water ran off the land and into the sea. Before
this in the story of creation, plants lived by seepage from the water
below. Genesis 2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the
earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had
not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the
ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole
face of the ground."
It is all quite logical, and the best science then available. Much more
logical and complete than the creation myths of most other ancient
peoples. I am baffled though as to how the water got back above the
firmament - or if it didn`t, why the water didn`t build up in the sea and
gradually drown everybody. Later on they thought that it just poured
away continuously into a great void, but I haven`t heard that this had
been worked out when Genesis was compiled. Very likely it had, though.
Tony Wheeler
Oliver Elphick
Steven Carr wrote:
>
> on Sun, 05 May 1996 08:59:55 +0100, Oliver Elphick
> <ol...@enterprise.net> wrote :
>
> <skip>
>
> water vapour envelope been lost.
>
> PSALM 148
>
> 1. Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the
> heavens: praise him in the heights.
> 2. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his
> hosts.
> 3. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars
> of light.
> 4. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that
> be above the heavens.
> 5. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded,
> and they were created.
> 6. He hath also established them for ever and ever: he
> hath made a decree which shall not pass.
>
> According to the Psalmist, there *are*, not *were*, waters above the
> heavens and they have been established for ever and ever.
> Creation science is not really Biblically based. It is very selective.
> .
I agree; the problem is that secular science may also be selective.
It is impossible for a non-scientist to judge, because the field of
knowledge is now too vast.
Oliver Elphick
Robert Billing wrote:
>
> Since the word YOM can mean any period of time, and there is some
> doubt over the translation of morning/evening (should it be
> beginning/ending?) your point is rather weak and may in fact be an
> artifact of translation. I'll only believe that there is anything in
> this if you can argue unequvocally from the original Hebrew, without
> recourse to the pointing.
Can any Hebraist comment, please?
> > 4. 'If the stars were created 6000 years ago, their light
> > could not yet have reached here.'
> >
> > It is clearly possible for God to create the light between the
> > stars and the earth as well as the stars themselves.
>
> Yes, but why?
So that they could be seen, to fulfil their purpose (Gen 1:14-15).
The analogy is with the creation of Adam, who, if created as described,
was presumably an adult male who had never had a childhood. Similarly,
God could have created an adult universe without a history. Everything
would be in place as if it had developed to that point, just as Adam
would have looked the same as if he had grown from a single cell in a
mother's womb.
>
> > 5. 'God doesn't deceive us, so the fossil record, that indicates an
> > evolutionary period of many millions of years, and the other
> > evidences of a very long development of the universe and the
> > earth must show that the evolutionary account is true.'
> >
> > First, God is willing to deceive or have deceived those who are
> > not whole-heartedly his (1 Kings 22:22).
>
> So if a Scientist who studies the evidence for an old earth also
> becomes a christian, he cannot be whole hearted? Your argument seems to
> be "if he believes in the old earth, it is because he is deceived, he
> is deceived because he is not whole hearted, which is because he
> believes in the old earth". Don't waste it, enter it for the 200m
> freestyle olympic circular argument.
Please don't put more emphasis on my argument than I intended. The whole
question is difficult, and we clearly have different opinions. Mine have
changed from accommodating to science (20 years ago) to a more literal
view. The reason is that the difficulties I find in the literal view are
less than those I find in the scientific view. But there are still
difficulties, some of which you have pointed out.
The point of God's allowing deception is directed at those who sinfully
refuse to believe in him, rather than those who try to find out what was
involved in creation. Romans 1 is another passage on the same lines.
Annabel Smyth
In article <CjDGNIA$NUjx...@purley.demon.co.uk>
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk "John Chapman" writes:
Luke has the census. Matthew's account says that Mary and Joseph lived
in Bethlehem until forced to flee in fear of Herod. They then didn't care
to settle quite so close to Jerusalem, so took a house in Nazareth
instead. I don't know which account is true, if either!
--
Annabel Smyth Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The countryside roundabout was gorgeous and extravagantly green. You
could be forgiven for thinking that the principle [sic] industry of
Britain is the manufacture of chlorophyll" Bill Bryson
Annabel Smyth
In article <318F46CB...@enterprise.net>
ol...@enterprise.net "Oliver Elphick" writes:
> The analogy is with the creation of Adam, who, if created as described,
> was presumably an adult male who had never had a childhood. Similarly,
> God could have created an adult universe without a history. Everything
> would be in place as if it had developed to that point, just as Adam
> would have looked the same as if he had grown from a single cell in a
> mother's womb.
>
Ah, but did he have a navel? If so, why?
Alan Zanker
David Aldridge <d...@ray.npl.co.uk> wrote:
>Dave Spence wrote:
>> I think it depends on which version of the bible you have. I can see
>> that reading the NIV would give a slightly diffferent view than this but
>> in the RSV (which is a good translation from Hebrew) it is clear that in
>> this passage God made man first and then the animals.
>
>You are right of course, and we would need a good greek translator to make
>certain how it should be written. I thought, since the NIV is more modern
>than the standard RSV, would have it slightly more correct, but either way
>it doesn't alter either of our main points! :-)
A slight detour at the end of the road in this thread (?):
I think there's a potential problem with the NIV. To quote the
preface: '... the translators were united in their commitment to the
authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written
form.' With such a commitment can they be totally neutral and
objective when translating difficult texts?
Robert Billing
> The analogy is with the creation of Adam, who, if created as described,
> was presumably an adult male who had never had a childhood.
^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly my point, this is a presumption, brought to scripture to
interpret it, rather than a lesson learned from scripture. Another
interpretation of the Hebrew could be that Adam grew up normally
having been born from non-sentient stock, and then God created
his human nature at a point in time, by direct or indirect means.
We have two possible interpretations, and nothing in scripture to tell
us which is true.
Frank Lane
In article <CjDGNIA$NUjx...@purley.demon.co.uk>,
John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It seems much more likely that it was the gospel writers who placed the
>birth in Bethlehem to fulfil the prophecy and had to invent a totally
>bogus census to explain why they were there.
If the gospels had been written generations after the event that would make
sense. Since, on the other hand, they were written within the first century,
it is hardly likely that no-one at the time would have remarked on the
fiction.
Frank
Frank Lane
In article <831489...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk>,
Annabel Smyth <Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Ah, but did he have a navel? If so, why?
In order to deceive any scientists that might have been around into thinking
that Adam had been born rather than made.
Frank
:-}
Douglas Cox
In article <Dr0CJ...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
peew...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Paul Wheeler") writes:
>I think it is much simpler to recognise that Genesis is to teach religion
>not science - so it is not more important that the science may be dated
>than that the spelling is dated. (No vowels at that stage though there
>are now in Hebrew).
But, was any distiction made between religion and science in those
days?
>Two bits of lore which I was given and which may be helpful :-
>1 The Jews were ambivalent about the sun. In their opinion it was
>too hot and gave you sunstroke. Psalms 121:5 "The LORD is thy keeper:
>the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand. The sun shall not smite thee
>by day" They thought that God had created the sun, but also that there
>was something nasty about it - perhaps due to the worship of sun gods by
>heathen nations round about.
>The ideal would be light and warmth without the sun - which is the
>arrangement in Revelations. Revelation 21:23 "And the city had no need
>of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did
>lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."
The passage in Revelation is a prophecy; it is a description of "new
Jerusalem", the "bride" of Christ, which is symbolic of the saints of
God glorified; John writes of the city as "having the glory of God" in
verse 11. So, naturally, they would no longer need the warmth or light
of the sun and moon, as they will have been transformed, and will no
longer be bound by gravity, for example, or the other limitations that
apply to this physical life. They will then be incorruptible, and
immortal.
>So, too, the more important and useful light was created first in the
>Genesis account.
>2 The earth was like two pudding basins on top of each other with
>the rims together.
> The top one was blue (the firmament of heaven) with
>stars and the sun and moon attached to the under side. Above this was
>water, and there were doors which the Lord opened when it rained. Psalms
>78:23 "Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the
>doors of heaven."
>The bottom pudding basin was the right way up. Sticking up in it was the
>dry land, and round the edge and underneath was water. Exodus 20:4 Thou
>shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
>that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
>the water under the earth.
There are several references to these subterranean waters which exist
beneath the crust of the earth, according to the information in the
Bible. These are the primeval waters that are referred to in Genesis
1:2. But, if the "waters under the earth" referred to in Ex. 20:4 are
taken as one water level, and the oceans and seas at the earth's
surface as another water level, this makes two water levels, and the
creation account in Genesis specifies only two water levels, that were
divided by the formation of the "firmament" that was made on day 2.
So, it would seem that the 'raqia' or firmament was really the earth's
crust and there has evidently been some tampering with the text of
Genesis 1.
St. Peter refers to the waters of the earth's interior in 2 Peter
3:5-6. He says these internal waters gave rise to the flood; this is
also suggested by Genesis 7:11, which refers to the "fountains of the
great deep" being broken up. Peter also mentions that men were
"willingly ignorant" of the existence of these subterranean waters.
Perhaps he was referring to the corruptions that were introduced into
the cosmology of the scripture in the second century BC, and
afterwards, that were intended to make the creation account, and
several other passages in scripture, conform to the geocentric
cosmology of the Greeks, with its rigid sky, to some extent. The idea
of a solid sky was originally a Greek idea, not a Hebrew one. It was
essential for their geocentric cosmology. The sky had to be rigid, in
the geocentric system, to keep the stars fixed in their relative
positions. However, in the Hellenistic period the philosophy and
"science" of the Greeks was imposed on other cultures, including that
of the Jews.
A hint of this exists in the Letter of Aristeas, which refers to the
Hebrew scriptures as being flawed and needing scholarly revision. The
revision, of course, was what became known as the Septuagint, or LXX.
It contained the "revised" cosmology that conformed more closely to
the understanding of the learned Greeks; the new Greek version of
Genesis 1 included the innovative statements that God named heaven,
earth, sea, day and night - all major Greek deities. Ever notice the
capital letters in the KJV? Subsequently, these "revisions" were also
inserted into the Hebrew Bible.
There is a discrepancy between the LXX and the KJV versions of Genesis
1; the mention that the events of the second day were pronounced
"good" is omitted in verse 8 of the KJV, but is present in the LXX.
Could this omission, perhaps, have been to make room of the addition
of the phrase "And God called the firmament Heaven" to some ancient
Hebrew text?
IMO, the original did not say God gave the 'raqia' or firmament a
name, nor did he name earth, sea, day or night. Or, if he did, surely
some of the Psalms would have mentioned it, and what fine names they
were!
>So when it rained, the water ran off the land and into the sea. Before
>this in the story of creation, plants lived by seepage from the water
>below. Genesis 2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the
>earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had
>not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the
>ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole
>face of the ground."
>It is all quite logical, and the best science then available. Much more
>logical and complete than the creation myths of most other ancient
>peoples. I am baffled though as to how the water got back above the
>firmament - or if it didn`t, why the water didn`t build up in the sea and
>gradually drown everybody. Later on they thought that it just poured
>away continuously into a great void, but I haven`t heard that this had
>been worked out when Genesis was compiled. Very likely it had, though.
Of course, to our minds, the present, corrupted versions of creation
sound silly, but you see, the 'raqia' or 'firmament' made on the
second day was the earth's crust, in the original version of the
Genesis creation account, and there was no "firmament of heaven". That
was added later on. Moses did not write that there were "waters above"
the rigid sky. That idea was a consequence of the corruptions
introduced in the second century BC, that identified the 'raqia' with
heaven; the prophecy of Daniel, chapter 8, indicates these corruptions
were initiated by the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, who controlled
Syria, Palestione and Mesopotamia, who is said to have "cast the truth
to the ground". He was apparently aided by the Hellenizers amongst the
Jews. Antiochus appointed the high priests of the Jews during his
reign, and he chose men who supported his program of Hellenization.
For more information see:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/firma1.html
--
Douglas Cox
Simon Muir
In article <318F46CB...@enterprise.net>, Oliver Elphick
<ol...@enterprise.net> writes:
[snip]
> Mine have
>changed from accommodating to science (20 years ago) to a more literal
>view. The reason is that the difficulties I find in the literal view are
>less than those I find in the scientific view.
Amen to that! I too began my Christian life believing in God-initiated
evolution. As my walk with God developed, it became very evident that
this simply wouldn't do. I have two lines of reasoning for this:
1. Scientific: Two main threads:
1.1: Evolution is a *hypothesis* _NOT_ a theory - it remains
unproven, which it would have to be to attain theoretical status.
Furthermore, the basic tenet - of " 'species' changing into 'better-
adapted and *DIFFERENT* species through a generation-by-generation
process of selection" (my paraphrase) is practically impossible to test
through the strictly-applied scientific method. Straightforward
experiments fail, and the current body of "experimental" evidence is
really observation coupled with speculation.
It is evident that the characteristics of animal types may
change over time and generations, but this is _NOT_ of itself Darwinian
evolution - we do not see a change from one type to another, and there
are many examples of life forms which could not have arrived at their
present state through intermediate forms. So what are we actually being
sold?
1.2: Darwinian evolution requires a _decrease_ in entropy - it
posits an _increase_ in order globally over time. This is impossible,
because of the second law of thermodynamics. Whatever mechanisms are
operating in the biosphere, they are _not_ (at a global level) creating
order from chaos.
2. Spiritual: Evolutionists propound an amoral process. When I became a
Christian, I discovered two amazing facts - firstly that it was possible
for a merely created being to have a relationship with his Creator, and
secondly that the personality of that Creator is characterised by love
and compassion in the face of Sin and disobedience. It has simply become
incredible to me that God could ever choose such a cruel and
dispassionate mechanism as evolution to set His creation in being - it's
just not in His nature. When I look around at the world I see marred but
still beautiful design, clearly intended order, patterns and great
beauty - evidence of a Fall from grace, not an ascendancy.
>But there are still
>difficulties, some of which you have pointed out.
Of course there are. I can no more prove my belief than someone else can
have _my_ relationship with God- it's essentially experiential and of
faith, not of science. It is also the case however, that evolution is a
matter of faith (see point 1.1, above) - it's just never presented as
such.
Why does all this really matter? After all, it's not essential dogma
(tautology?) to be a Creationist.
Simply put, suggesting that evolution is the mechanism used in the
creation of life and mankind is a slur on the good character of God
(tautology intended!), and as such has been used as justification for
many evils in the last 100 or so years, not least the Holocaust.
Behavioral psychologists lean on it to justify anti-social behaviour
(usually = sinful behaviour), and the concept that an amoral
("liberated") society is a desirable thing.
I still have problems - just because people are Creationists doesn't
mean they automatically do good science - they often don't, and when the
criticism is justified, it doesn't help a lay Christian's understanding
of the arguments. That said, I still don't believe that thinking
Christians can possibly be neutral on this subject, because of the way
eolution is used, and what it implies about God's character.
That, of course is, also just a statement of belief! ;-)
FWIW
Simon Muir (not a scientist, just a hack engineer married to a medic!)
sim...@muircom.demon.co.uk Is Turnpike the answer - only 27 days to find out
- I'd better fix the "V" on the keyboard!
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
Simon Muir
In article <4mpltc$5...@news.enterprise.net>, Frank Lane
<la...@enterprise.net> writes
Simon Muir
sim...@muircom.demon.co.uk
Is Turnpike the answer - only 29 days to find out - I'd better get typing!
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
David Aldridge
Alan Zanker wrote:
> A slight detour at the end of the road in this thread (?):
>
> I think there's a potential problem with the NIV. To quote the
> preface: '... the translators were united in their commitment to the
> authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written
> form.' With such a commitment can they be totally neutral and
> objective when translating difficult texts?
True, but then were the other translations performed by non-christians,
and if so, can I be sure that they got over the meaning correctly
either? The preface clarifies the statement above with the "belief that
it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it
sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth
the way to eternal wellbeing." - which seems *good* to me, not bad.
I don't think that the above has to conflict with accuracy of
translation - as the next paragraph states "The first concern of the
translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity
to the thought of the biblical writers." I think that the *many*
individuals that worked on any one passage could not easily collude to
try to twist certain passages away from the basic original form,
although of course, mistakes could always be present.
Perhaps we should have another thread on the various merits and
problems with particular versions, although this may have been done
already? I would certainly be interested, although I am not a
classical biblical scolar in any sense. :-)
David
--
David C. Aldridge
email: d...@ray.npl.co.uk / emp...@brunel.ac.uk
WWW: http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~empgdca/
If God had meant us to be naked, we would have been born that way.
If God had intended Man to Walk, He would have given him Feet.
If God had intended Man to Smoke, He would have set him on Fire.
Phill Skelton
Simon Muir wrote:
> Amen to that! I too began my Christian life believing in God-initiated
> evolution. As my walk with God developed, it became very evident that
> this simply wouldn't do. I have two lines of reasoning for this:
>
> 1. Scientific: Two main threads:
> 1.1: Evolution is a *hypothesis* _NOT_ a theory - it remains
> unproven, which it would have to be to attain theoretical status.
> Furthermore, the basic tenet - of " 'species' changing into 'better-
> adapted and *DIFFERENT* species through a generation-by-generation
> process of selection" (my paraphrase) is practically impossible to
> test
> through the strictly-applied scientific method. Straightforward
> experiments fail, and the current body of "experimental" evidence is
> really observation coupled with speculation.
> It is evident that the characteristics of animal types may
> change over time and generations, but this is _NOT_ of itself
> Darwinian
> evolution - we do not see a change from one type to another, and there
> are many examples of life forms which could not have arrived at their
> present state through intermediate forms. So what are we actually
> being sold?
Being needlessly pedantic, a theory *is* a hypothesis. A theorem is
something that is proven to be true. Not that this makes any difference
to your argument.
> 1.2: Darwinian evolution requires a _decrease_ in entropy - it
> posits an _increase_ in order globally over time. This is impossible,
> because of the second law of thermodynamics. Whatever mechanisms are
> operating in the biosphere, they are _not_ (at a global level)
> creating order from chaos.
>
Misunderstanding of the 2nd law. It is quite possible for systems of
low entropy to form (eg crystalisation), but this is always at the
expense of a greater increase in entropy in the rest of the system.
Evolution includes the creation of more organised (hence lower entropy)
organisms, at the expense of increased disorder on the whole planet. But
this also is unimportant nit-picking.
> 2. Spiritual: Evolutionists propound an amoral process. When I became
> a Christian, I discovered two amazing facts - firstly that it was
> possible
> for a merely created being to have a relationship with his Creator,
> and
> secondly that the personality of that Creator is characterised by love
> and compassion in the face of Sin and disobedience. It has simply
> become
> incredible to me that God could ever choose such a cruel and
> dispassionate mechanism as evolution to set His creation in being -
> it's
> just not in His nature. When I look around at the world I see marred
> but
> still beautiful design, clearly intended order, patterns and great
> beauty - evidence of a Fall from grace, not an ascendancy.
There is a thing in philosophy called 'the excluded middle'. You have
stated two 'extreme' positions and then said that we must chose between
them.
I agree with you that mechanical evolution is incorrect because it
denies the personal interest that God has for us - the idea that he
created each of us specifically. What about divinely guided 'evolution'?
Which isn't evolution at all but more creation on a more scientifically
acceptable timescale. This is I suppose my view. I believe the universe
to be approximately 16 billion years old or so (unless the universe is
one huge hoax designed to fool us into believing that), and I believe
that God created all of it and is continually active in it and that it
is being worked out according to his plan of salvation after we screwed
things up.
BTW Evolution does not claim to be a process of continually creating
'better' species. That was Darwin's view, but no evolutionary biologists
nowadays believe it. It is a process of increasing specialisation in a
certain environment, and when the environment changes noticably then
most of the highly specialised creatures die off. But as I said. I don't
believe in evolution in this sense anyway.
K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON
Alan Zanker (al...@bittern.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: David Aldridge <d...@ray.npl.co.uk> wrote:
: >Dave Spence wrote:
: >> I think it depends on which version of the bible you have. I can see
: >> that reading the NIV would give a slightly diffferent view than this but
: >> in the RSV (which is a good translation from Hebrew) it is clear that in
: >> this passage God made man first and then the animals.
: >
: >You are right of course, and we would need a good greek translator to make
: >certain how it should be written. I thought, since the NIV is more modern
: >than the standard RSV, would have it slightly more correct, but either way
: >it doesn't alter either of our main points! :-)
: A slight detour at the end of the road in this thread (?):
: I think there's a potential problem with the NIV. To quote the
: preface: '... the translators were united in their commitment to the
: authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written
: form.' With such a commitment can they be totally neutral and
: objective when translating difficult texts?
I was told the NIV was translated with a fundamentalist bias. Eg the
passage in Isaiah 'The young woman shall bear a child and call his name
Emmanuel'. When Mathew quotes this passage the word is Virgin but I was
told that the Hebrew word in Isaiah had two meanings. And that as well as
a prophecy about the virgin birth of Christ, there was also a 'current
day' sign for King Ahab as well. The NIV renders the Isaiah word as
Virgin, following the Septuagint but not the original Hebrew. Any comments?
Kathy HH
Mr D.A.V. Clucas
Dave Spence (djs...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: I too have heard this. If I remember correctly, James Barr talks about
: this in his excellent book "Fundamentalism". Have you ever read the story
: about Elisha calling out a heard of bears to kill some boys. In the RSV it
: calls them "small boys" but in the NIV it calls them "youths" which alters
: the impact of the story somewhat. I do not believe the error lies in the
: RSV as it is used by the Roman Catholic Church for training would-be
: priests due to its close following of the original Greek and Hebrew. I
: read a book by Josh McDowell (a leading American fundamentalist) where he
: critisized the RSV for being 'inconstistent with its prophesies', quoting
: the prophesy of the virgin birth in Isiah7:14. Perhaps this says more
: about him and the attitude of fundamentalist Christians than about the
: RSV.
Probably, but I think any translator/historian or textual
critic brings his own biases into his scholarship. Anyone who says
they have tried to escape all soureces of possible bias is probably
deluding themselves. Therefore, when I get the money, I will probably
fork out on another couple of bibles.
All the best
Andy Clucas
--
D.A.V.Clucas email::cl...@liverpool.ac.uk
Dave Spence
K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON (K.Haigh-H...@bradford.ac.uk) wrote:
: : >Dave Spence wrote:
I too have heard this. If I remember correctly, James Barr talks about
this in his excellent book "Fundamentalism". Have you ever read the story
about Elisha calling out a heard of bears to kill some boys. In the RSV it
calls them "small boys" but in the NIV it calls them "youths" which alters
the impact of the story somewhat. I do not believe the error lies in the
RSV as it is used by the Roman Catholic Church for training would-be
priests due to its close following of the original Greek and Hebrew. I
read a book by Josh McDowell (a leading American fundamentalist) where he
critisized the RSV for being 'inconstistent with its prophesies', quoting
the prophesy of the virgin birth in Isiah7:14. Perhaps this says more
about him and the attitude of fundamentalist Christians than about the
RSV.
Peace,
Dave Spence
--
=============================================================================
David J. Spence = Visit the Christis Web
Postgraduate = Page
Department of Physics = http://www.york.ac.uk/~socs90
University of York =
djs...@unix.york.ac.uk = THE Christian magazine
=============================================================================
THE LATEST EDITION OF CHRISTIS IS OUT NOW AND WILL BE APPEARING ON THE WEB
PAGE SHORTLY.
Dave Spence
Simon Muir (sim...@muircom.demon.co.uk) wrote:
<SNIP>
: 1. Scientific: Two main threads:
<SNIP>
: 1.2: Darwinian evolution requires a _decrease_ in entropy - it
: posits an _increase_ in order globally over time. This is impossible,
: because of the second law of thermodynamics. Whatever mechanisms are
: operating in the biosphere, they are _not_ (at a global level) creating
: order from chaos.
Not so. The entropy of a system can decrease. It is the entropy of the
universe which tends towards a maximum.
: 2. Spiritual: Evolutionists propound an amoral process. When I became a
: Christian, I discovered two amazing facts - firstly that it was possible
: for a merely created being to have a relationship with his Creator, and
: secondly that the personality of that Creator is characterised by love
: and compassion in the face of Sin and disobedience. It has simply become
: incredible to me that God could ever choose such a cruel and
: dispassionate mechanism as evolution to set His creation in being - it's
: just not in His nature. When I look around at the world I see marred but
: still beautiful design, clearly intended order, patterns and great
: beauty - evidence of a Fall from grace, not an ascendancy.
I don't think God-guided evolution is cruel and dispassionate. Not only
can science show us from whence we came, it can also show us the wonder of
the universe. Consider, science has shown that there is approx. 1e11 stars
in our galaxy and about a similar number of galaxies in the whole
universe. The universe is just so amazing ! And in all of that, and
perhaps more, there is only one of each of us and God loves us all. To me
this knowledge increases my faith. An example of science helping faith !
: Of course there are. I can no more prove my belief than someone else can
: have _my_ relationship with God- it's essentially experiential and of
: faith, not of science. It is also the case however, that evolution is a
: matter of faith (see point 1.1, above) - it's just never presented as
: such.
I would certainly agree that pure (atheistic) evolution is a matter of
faith. In my opinion atheists must have the strongest faith of all ! BUT
to agrgue that some evolutionary process has been going on is simply to
draw conclusions from your observations.
: Why does all this really matter? After all, it's not essential dogma
: (tautology?) to be a Creationist.
I agree. On the scale of important theological points it rates
pretty low.
: Simply put, suggesting that evolution is the mechanism used in the
: creation of life and mankind is a slur on the good character of God
: (tautology intended!), and as such has been used as justification for
: many evils in the last 100 or so years, not least the Holocaust.
: Behavioral psychologists lean on it to justify anti-social behaviour
: (usually = sinful behaviour), and the concept that an amoral
: ("liberated") society is a desirable thing.
I must disagree with you here, I'm afraid. FUNDAMENTALISTS HAVE BEEN USING
THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY ALSORTS OF RUBBISH SUCH AS GAY-BASHING, GENOCIDE,
SLAVERY, RACISM, SEXISM, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND PROVING THE DEMONIC NATURE
OF THE PAPACY !! Go to http://www.alaska.net/~schoedel/ on the internet
for some examples of this sort of abuse - BE WARNED THIS IS A VERY
DISTURBING SITE !!! Here, a group of extreme fundamentalist Christians try
and justify the holocaust using the bible. It is VERY disturbing and will
probably make you feel sick at how people can use the Bible to justify
such evil hatred ! The point being that you don't need evolution to
justify such horrors - some people will just use the Bible!
: I still have problems - just because people are Creationists doesn't
: mean they automatically do good science - they often don't, and when the
: criticism is justified, it doesn't help a lay Christian's understanding
: of the arguments. That said, I still don't believe that thinking
: Christians can possibly be neutral on this subject, because of the way
: eolution is used, and what it implies about God's character.
Actually, a lot of 'thinking' Christians believe in theistic evolution.
: That, of course is, also just a statement of belief! ;-)
Fair enough.
Peace in Christ
Steven Carr
on 9 May 1996 10:51:57 GMT, K.Haigh-H...@bradford.ac.uk
(K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) wrote :
<skip>
>I was told the NIV was translated with a fundamentalist bias. Eg the
>passage in Isaiah 'The young woman shall bear a child and call his name
>Emmanuel'. When Mathew quotes this passage the word is Virgin but I was
>told that the Hebrew word in Isaiah had two meanings. And that as well as
>a prophecy about the virgin birth of Christ, there was also a 'current
>day' sign for King Ahab as well. The NIV renders the Isaiah word as
>Virgin, following the Septuagint but not the original Hebrew. Any comments?
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is 'aalmah' which means young woman.
(See Gen 24:43) There is a Hebrew word 'betulah', which means virgin.
(See Gen 24:16)
Further, the Hebrew word 'ot' (sign) In Isaiah 7:14 need not mean a
miracle. See Isaiah 37:30, for a non-miraculous 'ot'.
The early Christian Justin Martyr was quite clear why the Jews did not
accept that the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14 was the correct one
- the Hebrew scriptures were corrupt and had been perverted by the
Jews.
In Dialogue with Trypho, he wrote
I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.
.....But you in these matters venture to pervert the expositions which
your elders that were with Ptolemy king of Egypt gave forth, since you
assert that the Scripture is not so as they have expounded it, but
says, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive,' ...
Paul Wheeler
> Douglas Cox says :
In article <Dr0CJ...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
> peew...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Paul Wheeler") writes:
>
> >I think it is much simpler to recognise that Genesis is to teach
> religion >not science - so it is not more important that the science
> may be dated >than that the spelling is dated. (No vowels at that
> stage though there >are now in Hebrew).
>
> But, was any distinction made between religion and science in those
> days?
Perhaps not - perhaps no distinction made between spelling and religion,
either.
(Lots of good stuff cut to save space)
> Of course, to our minds, the present, corrupted versions of creation
> sound silly, but you see, the 'raqia' or 'firmament' made on the
> second day was the earth's crust, in the original version of the
> Genesis creation account, and there was no "firmament of heaven". That
> was added later on. Moses did not write that there were "waters above"
> the rigid sky. That idea was a consequence of the corruptions
> introduced in the second century BC, that identified the 'raqia' with
> heaven; the prophecy of Daniel, chapter 8, indicates these corruptions
> were initiated by the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, who controlled
> Syria, Palestione and Mesopotamia, who is said to have "cast the truth
> to the ground". He was apparently aided by the Hellenizers amongst the
> Jews. Antiochus appointed the high priests of the Jews during his
> reign, and he chose men who supported his program of Hellenization.
>
> For more information see:
> http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/firma1.html
Thanks for the posting. I`ll hope to go to the web site.
Tony Wheeler
Dave Spence
On Thu, 9 May 1996, Mr D.A.V. Clucas wrote:
> Dave Spence (djs...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
<SNIP>
> : I read a book by Josh McDowell (a leading American fundamentalist)
> : where he
> : critisized the RSV for being 'inconstistent with its prophesies', quoting
> : the prophesy of the virgin birth in Isiah7:14. Perhaps this says more
> : about him and the attitude of fundamentalist Christians than about the
> : RSV.
>
> Probably, but I think any translator/historian or textual
> critic brings his own biases into his scholarship. Anyone who says
> they have tried to escape all soureces of possible bias is probably
> deluding themselves. Therefore, when I get the money, I will probably
> fork out on another couple of bibles.
>
> All the best
>
> Andy Clucas
Clucy,
It is always a good idea to have more than one translation. I have an
NIV, an RSV and a KJV. It is quite interesting how they differ. I don't
find the KJV very useful, however, as it's a bit difficult to understand.
The RSV is very poetic and seems to use the most beautiful language,
whereas the NIV is the easiest to understand.
BTW, I think I know you, vaguely. I used to go to Liverpool University in
1993/1994 (MSc at the IRC in Surface Science). You used to go to AngChap,
if I recall. I had some friends in Physics who went and I came along to a
laser questing evening with a few of you at Edge Lane Retail Park.
It's a small world.
Take care,
Dave Spence
Martin East
Richard Herring (r...@gmrc.gecm.com) wrote:
: Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: : True : Christians often find a problem with science conflicting with the Bible.
: : I as a Christian throw away any scientific "foundation" which undermines the
: : truth in the Bible. God's word comes first.
: Indeed. If two apparent truths are in conflict, then one of them must be
: false, or you have misunderstood at least one of them. To determine which
: is false, or where your misunderstanding lies, you have to evaluate them
: objectively. It's no use starting from the preconception that one of them
: "must" be true. It might help to start by considering the unspoken
: assumption here that the Bible was dictated to St. Paul (in 16th century
: English, naturally) by the Almighty, and that consequently every word in it
: is "literally true", whatever that might mean.
: : Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver? Then you must agree that anything which
: : undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.
: Dodgy logic there. As a scientist, you should know better. You appear to
: be saying:
: (1) Satan is a deceiver.
: (2) All deceit undermines the Gospel.
: (3) Therefore all which undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.
: Even given the premises (I'll leave it to others to argue about the
: unspoken one which precedes (1), but (2) looks distinctly shaky)
: the conclusion simply does not follow.
Doesn't it?
To bring people away from God is Satan's plan.
: : Evoulution is a clever plan, it was
: : also Satan's plan to bury Darwin under the floor of Westminster abbey, to
: : undermine the church. That was a great downfall of the church, and it has never
: : recovered to this day.
: I have this mental picture of something seeping out from Darwin's remains
: and gradually infiltrating the crumbly stonework until the Abbey eventually
: collapses. I'm sorry, but it's so funny I can't take it seriously.
: Darwin proposed a theory, since improved upon by others, which makes
: testable predictions. It may be true or it may be false. If it's false,
: then it can be proved so by standard scientific methods, without recourse
: to dogma. If true, well then, it's true; from a religious perspective,
: presumably you can learn from it something more about the relationship
: between God and his creation. If it also conflicts with the
: *literal* interpretation of a creation myth, then that myth is not
: *literally* true. Since the purpose of myth is not the expression of literal
: truth, that is totally unimportant.
The church has never been taken seriously since Darwin was buried in it.
: --
: Richard Herring | richard...@gecm.com | Speaking for myself
: GEC-Marconi Research Centre | Not the one on TV.
--
Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science
: Heriot-Watt University
Email: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk : Edinburgh (Scotland)
______________________________________________________
(Advertising Manager for "Watt's On" student newspaper.)
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
(If you want to place an ad in this local Edinburgh )
(paper please E-Mail for details. )
(______________________________________________________)
`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes
<>< - Its quite good having my creator as a friend.
Martin East
David Aldridge (d...@ray.npl.co.uk) wrote:
: Martin East wrote:
: > I am sure the evidence for + against exists , but, thats not what I want to
: > get bogged down with. The fact of the matter is that God created the world,
: > and us, and that we sinned, and will die because of that
: > ... thats what really matters.
: But Martin, I don't think anyone *here* is arguing that God did not
: create the world! They are just arguing that our understanding of
: the ancient aramaic word (which we take to mean day) may not actually
: have meant to signify a literal 24 hour period.
: While it's quite OK for you to believe that God created the world in
: 6 x 24 hour periods, and that if God is God, he could have done it in
: 6 microseconds instead, that doesn't mean that everyone else should.
: Personally, I believe in a God who could have done it in the 6 days,
: but I also see some pretty good evidence that the universe is old.
And... this evidence is worked on by man's theory. No 'evidence' can
prove one way or the other... it is the theory that builds upon the
'evidence' which makes it 'evidence' one way or the other...
: Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. What matters is that people
: can be saved from their sins through Christ's death on the cross and
: subsequent resurrection. Whether I believe in evolution or 6-day
: creation does *not* alter this wonderful fact.
Exactly... I have found that it really helps in my witness, however.
: Yours,
: David
: --
: David C. Aldridge
: email: d...@ray.npl.co.uk / emp...@brunel.ac.uk
: WWW: http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~empgdca/
: If God had meant us to be naked, we would have been born that way.
: If God had intended Man to Walk, He would have given him Feet.
: If God had intended Man to Smoke, He would have set him on Fire.
--
Martin East
Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: In article <Dqq2w...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
: >Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver? Then you must agree that anything which
: >undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.
: Yes, you've almost got it. What you have not realised is that *Creationism*
: was Satan's invention. By subverting a few religeous leaders (either by
: simply corrupting them, or imbuing them with sinful pride), he has achieved
: two goals:
: 1. Stop Christians from concentrating on the Word and the Will of God, and
: distract them with lots of arguments about whether scientific evidence
: or a literal interpretation of Genesis I should take precedence.
I argue creationism for the purpose of bringing people closer to God,
as it has done this for me, and my recently converted Born-Again
ex-flatmate (Praise the Lord!)
: 2. Make many non-Christians who might otherwise have found Jesus go away,
: because Christianity "obviously" contradicts the facts.
I have found that the 'facts' fit creation theory just as well as any
evolutionary theory - AND it brings everyone onto the topic of God.
: This would be much easier for Satan, because tricking or subverting lots and
: lots of scientists would be difficult, while doing the same thing to a few
: preachers would be much easier and far more effective.
True.
Satan's trickery will be used in every knowledge field know to man,
Creationism does not escape this.
But Evolution is a much cleverer trick and has influenced many more people.
: Paul.
: --
: Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
: +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
: Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
: Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.
Martin East
Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: In article <Dqq39...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...
: >Predict: Yes, if God did create the world then Revelations is to happen,
: >surely thats
: >a pretty good prediction.
: Unfortunately people have been predicting that the Book of Revelation (note:
: not "Revelations") is about to happen for a fraction under 2,000 years. So
: far they have been 100% wrong.
: To qualify as a testable prediction, there has to be a time when we can
: decide whether it was true or false. Revelation is not a testable prediction
: because it has not got a time limit. No matter how long we wait, we can never
: mark it false because it still might happen tomorrow.
: >> [Science makes testable predictions, many of which are correct]
: >And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
: >of prediction also!
: Care to cite examples? Remember that to match the predictions made by
: science, an example must fulfil the following criteria:
: 1. Specific. It must be possible to tell beforehand what event is predicted.
: Matching events to prophecies after the fact does not count.
The taking over of Jerusalem by the Gentiles.
The scattering of the Jews across the face of the earth, mass genocide
(WW2).
: 2. Surprising. "It will rain on Tuesday" is not surprising. "My house will
: be struck by lightning on Tuesday" is surprising.
The taking back of Jerusalem by the Jews.
(the 6 day war).
: 3. Not part of a scattershot. If you make 100 predictions, each of which
: has a 1% chance of occuring, then you can expect to see about 1 which
: comes true. By conveniently forgetting the other 99 you can look like
: a pretty good prophet.
: Paul.
: --
: Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
: +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
: Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
: Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.
PS. Sorry, can someone confirm the verses which apply here?
Martin East
David Shephard (d...@vulcan.gmrc.gecm.com) wrote:
: A lot of the argument for and against evolution or creationism rest on
: how long God took to create the Universe. If God took 6 Earth days then
: creationism must be the prefered option. But how long is one of God's
: days? I am happy to believe that to God a day could be longer than 1
: Earth day. If we lived on the Moon a day would last nearly a month.
: Robert Billing quoted a Jewish joke in a separate thread. I quote it
: below:
So why did God create the time "DAY". What is a day now...
God works outside time and so any time is only relevant to our experience...
Maybe to God a day is a million blarbs or something... but how do we know?
: > I'm just beginning to wonder if counting days before the sun is not
: > the *first* recorded Jewish joke, perpitrated with God's connivance on
: > generations of gentiles who take themselves far too seriously. Let's
: > face it, the sequence could well have gone like this...
: >
: > (Apologies in advance to all my Jewish friends, including the one who
: > told me an earlier version of this. I've just jazzed it up a bit)
: >
: > God: Hey, Moshe, we do the first bit today, you write down about
: > where I create it all.
: >
: > Moses (Puts down cream cheese bagel): Ok, where we start?
: >
: > God: In the beginning I created...
: >
: > Moses: How long this all take then?
: >
: > God: About 1.4 E 10 years.
: >
: > Moses: How you suppose I write that in ancient Hebrew? We haven't even
: > got a positional number system, let alone floating point.
: >
: > God: So? You got a word for time?
: >
: > Moses: I got YOM.
: >
: > God: So what that mean?
: >
: > Moses: Well, it mean a day, or a year, or the reign of a king, it goes
: > with the context.
: >
: > God: So you got a word that means 1.4E10 years. Use it.
: >
: > Moses: I just had a thought. Someday someone's got to translate this
: > into gentile. Won't they think it only took a week?
: >
: > God: Not if they notice we don't put the sun in until half way.
: >
: > Moses: But if they don't they could make complete idiots of
: > themselves.
: >
: > God: The boy's catching on.
: >
: > --
: > I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
: > lover, I live in England, near 0:46W 51:22N. "How strange-
: > indeed, how perverse- to weep for a machine! Even one with as complex
: > and temperamental a personality as the Mark I..." Arthur C Clarke
: Can any Hebrew scholar comment on the meaning of the word "YOM". If the
: Hebrew for a day is so flexible, then 6 days (YOMs) gives plenty of time
: for the Big Bang and evolution. All guided by our loving God, the
: creator of the Universe.
: --
: David Shephard, Avionics Lab. | Tel: +44 1245 242039
: GEC-Marconi Research Centre | Fax: +44 1245 242003
: GEC-Marconi Ltd, Great Baddow | Email: david.s...@gecm.com
: Chelmsford,Essex. UK CM2 8HN | GEC sponsors the bandwidth not my opinion.
Martin East
John Chapman (jo...@purley.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <Dqq3o...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: writes
:
: >
: >: You seem to be arguing that we can't know anything until we know
: >: everything. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I know the sky
: >: is blue, but I don't know everything.
: >
: >We can make relative statements : the sky is blue to you. But what
: >about a snake? is it blue to a snake?
: A snake, so far as I am aware has no language and therefore cannot
: describe the colour of the sky, however were he a scientist he would
: probably be able to measure the frequency of blue light and come to
: roughly the same value as we do.
: >
:
: >
: >: Which bits of the world look 6,000 years old to you, and how can you
: >: tell?
: >
: >How can you tell they are 5 billion yrs. I stand by my Bible and what it
: >says, the world was created in 6 days, not 6 billion years.
: Unfortunately a day is defined in terms of the relationship between the
: sun and the earth. If you really want to believe Genesis then when in
: ch1 v2 he created light, he had not yet created the lamps in the
: firmament which divided day from night. This does not come until v14
: thus all the intervening creations were made in time periods which had
: no defined length and hence could have been anywhere from about 5 hours
: to 5exp50000 hours or more. I am afraid you cannot measure the length of
: a day until the means of defining have been created.
God used laymans terms so we could understand.
:
: >: I have a theory that the sky is pink. You will of course give equal
: >: consideration to this theory, despite scientific consensus that the sky
: >: is in fact blue.
: >
: >But what does God say, he created it.
: Perhaps you can point to this reference. In my copy of Genesis it is
: described merely as light. Or has God given you a special message on
: this topic.
Cynicism will get you no-where! :) There must be somewhere it talks about
the sky being blue.
: >
: >: In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
: >: year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
: >: and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
: >: waiting.
: >
: >In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
: >came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.
: the figure of 6000 years came from Bishop Usher I seem to remember
Well, it fits in quite well with the ages of the people in the Bible.
But it could be anything up to 15000 years old.
: >
: >Creation is about God, and God is about life!
: >
: >I am sure the evidence for + against exists , but, thats not what I
: want to
: >get bogged down with. The fact of the matter is that God created the
: world,
: >and us, and that we sinned, and will die because of that
: >... thats what really matters.
: That is perhaps a view of what the creation story tells us but there is
: no need therefore to take the essential truth that 'God created' and try
: to use the imagary by which this message was transmitted down the ages
: as a rational explanation of how God performed the creation
:
It works for witness however.
: --
: John Chapman
: jo...@purley.demon.co.uk
Martin East
Steven Carr (ca...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: on Sat, 4 May 1996 18:54:36 GMT, peew...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Paul
: Wheeler") wrote :
: >Stephen Carr astonished me by saying :
: <spelling flame on>
: My name is spelled with a v
: <spelling flame off>
: >> Different parts of the Earth are at different ages. The oceans are
: >> relatively young. One dating method (based, IIRC, on the concentration
: >> of aluminium ) gives a date for the oceans of about 100 years old.
: >No oceans until 1890? Someone must have forgotten to tell Nelson, then.
: >Have I flipped and missed something important?
: Not really. It is based on the amount of aluminium going into the
: oceans each year and the concentration of aluminium in seawater.
: Divide one into another and you get a date of about 100 years for the
: oceans.
Why should we pick one over another then? Since we can only prove some
wrong.
: This lets us conclude that not all dating methods give accurate ages.
: Many give just a minimum age. The real age can be much older.
: The aluminium in the seawater is only about 100 years old as it is
: constantly recycled, but the oceans are much older.
: This is why saying 90 percent of dating methods give a young earth is
: not worth much.
: .
: Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com
: Gun,foot,aim,fire!
Martin East
Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: In article <Dqq3u...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
: >:The fact that God took longer than 144
: >: hours to create the world does not alter the fact that He created it which
: >: was the main point of Genesis 1.
: >
: >But it dilutes the power and the absolute soverignty of God, this is
: >what Satan wants, it will make us weaker if we accept Satan's deceptions.
: >
: >God wants us to believe what is written not what us humans think!
: There are those who might suggest that it is your literalism in understanding
: this passage which dilutes the power and absolute sovereignty of God.
: Your understanding, and mine, of what is written is affected by a whole bunch
: of human considerations.
: Do you believe that when you drink the wine of Communion you are drinking they
: very blood that flowed from our Saviour's veins on the cross? And that the
: bread (or wafer - I don't know which you use) you eat is actual human flesh? I
: rather doubt it. Yet that is what is written.
: How many eyes and hands do you have left, for if you insist on your own
: statement above you would have to obey the command, if your eye offend you,
: pluck it out etc.
: Why choose only one passage to be literal about and ignore the others.
: God does not need you or me to defend his sovereignty. He is sovereign and
: that fact cannot be diluted by your literalism or my ability to recognise that
: Genesis 1 - 3 is not a scientific but a doctrinal statement.
: Frank Lane
I find it weakens my witness to my age range. It is a scientific age, and
science is accepted as fact over the existence of God.
: Love, Peace and Joy in Jesus
: *************************************
: Frank Lane
: la...@enterprise.net
: http://homepages.enterprise.net/lane
: *************************************
Paul Wright
In article <0eXB8PAw...@muircom.demon.co.uk>,
Simon Muir <sim...@muircom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> It is evident that the characteristics of animal types may
>change over time and generations, but this is _NOT_ of itself Darwinian
>evolution - we do not see a change from one type to another,
Something that happens too slowly for humans to observe it a
lifetime can still be accepted as a scientific theory: take the
position of continents at past times for example.
>and there
>are many examples of life forms which could not have arrived at their
>present state through intermediate forms.
Name 10. :-)
> 1.2: Darwinian evolution requires a _decrease_ in entropy - it
>posits an _increase_ in order globally over time. This is impossible,
>because of the second law of thermodynamics.
(SFX: Chorus of screams from physicists on the group) Come on,
entropy of the system decreases, entropy of the universe as a whole
increases. That's certainly not against the 2nd Law. Think of a
fridge or something like that. (1B Thermodynamics had a use after
all!)
>and compassion in the face of Sin and disobedience. It has simply become
>incredible to me that God could ever choose such a cruel and
>dispassionate mechanism as evolution to set His creation in being - it's
>just not in His nature.
What is cruel about it? Things die in the process, but they do that
anyway. Animals kill each other in this "created" world of yours
too!
>faith, not of science. It is also the case however, that evolution is a
>matter of faith (see point 1.1, above) - it's just never presented as
>such.
I think most science is ultimately a matter of faith. The method
assumes nature is rational and won't suddenly change when you repeat
the experiment. It requires you to believe that induction is a valid
way of gaining knowledge.
>Why does all this really matter? After all, it's not essential dogma
>(tautology?) to be a Creationist.
It doesn't, I just like debating it. As long as we can do it without
getting overexcited.
>Behavioral psychologists lean on it to justify anti-social behaviour
>(usually = sinful behaviour), and the concept that an amoral
>("liberated") society is a desirable thing.
I agree that some psychologists do this. But a theory that can be
misused is not necessarily untrue. Also, the theory correctly used
doesn't *justify* such behaviour, it explains why some people feel the
urge(!) to do it.
Listening to "The New Sexual Nature" on Radio 4 over the holidays, I
heard psychologists making the observation that species where the
male is bigger than the female are naturally inclined to be
polygamous ie adulterous. However, the presenter (a psychologist)
pointed out that humans are intelligent and so have a choice whether
or not to do it. Psychology is about reasons not excuses.
>of the arguments. That said, I still don't believe that thinking
>Christians can possibly be neutral on this subject, because of the way
>eolution is used, and what it implies about God's character.
I agree that evolution without a belief in God leads to error,
however, it is possible to think that God had a hand in it (I'm
reminded of the monkeys/monolith sequence at the beginning of 2001)
without being a literal creationist (world made in 6 days etc).
The way I see God's role in creation is that he is completely
involved in it: it is not a case of him stopping the laws of physics
to do something "miraculous" and then letting things run on for a
bit. He sustains everything, whether it appears miraculous or mundane
to us. Hawking uses the phrase "the fire in the equations" when he
asks why the universe goes to the trouble of existing: IMHO God is
that fire.
Paul
--
Paul Wright, Churchill College, Cambridge | NatSci 1B Advanced Physics
http://tickle.chu.cam.ac.uk/~pw201/ | pw...@hermes.cam.ac.uk, FFPGP
Martin East
Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: In article <4mdd7n$h...@soap.news.pipex.net>,
: ca...@dial.pipex.com (Steven Carr) wrote:
: >BTW, Where was this conference in 1980? Who were these top scientists?
: >Why did they feel evolution was debunked?
: >..
: > Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com
: >Gun,foot,aim,fire!
: It comes to my mind that when this thread was started I posted a note saying
: something to the effect of
: "I wish you hadn't done that! Now we are going to have another long
: interminable thread which gets us nowhere!"
: I don't know whether it has got anyone anywhere but it's certainly been long
: and fairly interminable.
I hope to bring people closer to God with this!
: Frank
Martin East
Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: In article <831489...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk>,
: Annabel Smyth <Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >Ah, but did he have a navel? If so, why?
: In order to deceive any scientists that might have been around into thinking
: that Adam had been born rather than made.
HERE, HERE!!! :)
: Frank
: :-}
Paul Wright
In article <Dr5Gt...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>Richard Herring (r...@gmrc.gecm.com) wrote:
>: Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
>: : undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.
>
>: be saying:
>: (1) Satan is a deceiver.
>: (2) All deceit undermines the Gospel.
[which Richard says does not follow]
>Doesn't it?
>To bring people away from God is Satan's plan.
It does not follow in the same way that
(1) Carrots cannot drive tractors
(2) Things which cannot drive tractors undermine the gospel.
(3) Therefore the Empire State building (which also cannot drive
tractors and so undermines the gospel) is a carrot.
does not follow. I thought CompSci's did prepositional logic! Go and
read Doug Hofstadter or someone like that.
>The church has never been taken seriously since Darwin was buried in it.
Why not? Who does not take it seriously?