Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

If he can't do it theologically, he can at least do it for his Republican Kingdom of god ...

"... his Republican Kingdom of god ..." ?

Hey!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

You can't dance around the evening and morning part.
A Jewish day begins at sunset. At the beginning of the evening.

Obviously I don't need an interpretor. Some folks like yourself struggle with reading comprehension

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I use scripture to interpret scripture. If I used The religion of Evolution, (to interpret scripture) we would see a need to call out the 10 commandments as false.

Exodus 20 matches exodus 19, Genesis 1 and the story of the flood.

Genesis 7:4
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

I enjoy several evolutionist apologists confirm that the THEORY of Evolution is a foundation of a religion and actually calls for a special revelation and "interpretation" of the bible.


I of course don't take these zealots litterally. it is name calling and emotion and not empirical evidence or science.

There were no Jews then. Since God is a Spirit and since the sun and moon were not created yet, God did not have a literal evening and morning or 24 hour period. That's for us. Remember the Sabbath was made for man. God was not tired and needed rest. He simply ceased creating

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"... his Republican Kingdom of god ..." ?

Hey!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

There were no Jews then. Since God is a Spirit and since the sun and moon were not created yet, God did not have a literal evening and morning or 24 hour period. That's for us. Remember the Sabbath was made for man. God was not tired and needed rest. He simply ceased creating

What does that have to do with Jews? They are not connected to the rotation of the earth.

"ceased creating". There we have an admission of the end of evolution and denial of evolution in a single expression.

You lack in formal education and can't discerne the assumptions you offer. You assume that if the sun and moon stop existing, the rotation of the earth would stop.

Where can you measure and prove God didn't have a literal 24 hour evening and morning and 24 hour day. I thank you in advance for showing your work and test for that claim.

Are you still limping under the assumption that anyone takes your posts limping under the assuimption that anyone takes your comments litterally?

All you can offer is opinion and speculation. You never offer true science.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by DAII

You could just answer the Zerubbabel question with another copy and paste job.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No. It demonstrates that the genealogies CANNOT be taken literally. Moreover, since I'm hardly the first person to notice the problems in the genealogies (See the Talmud, for example) it's quite apparent that the genealogies were NEVER intended to be taken literally.

The geneologies ARE to be taken literally. Would you posit that Jesus was only figuratively the Son of David? Or just symbolically Jewish? I believe the genologies are literal.

As for the "Zurubbabel question" I personally don't know, I haven't looked into it. My ignorance of a subject doesn't prove the Bible is in error. I'm far from knowing everything. If someone is basing their faith on my ability to answer all arguments their being foolish. To me its the same argument as Belshazzar, the Roman census, and the king named in Isaish 20:1. All these things in the past were thought to be slam dunk arguments against biblical inerrancy, and in time the Bible (as always) emerged vindicated.

Originally Posted by pelathais

If you can't (or won't) answer the Zerubbabel question - then tear the genealogies out of your Bible. They contradict one another and couldn't possibly be literal.

What a ridiculous statement. Because I don't understand something doesn't mean I throw it out. Its not I who has disregarded the plain reading of scripture in favor of ever changing atheistic scientific theories. Its not I who deny certain miracles in the Bible, and accept others which are convenient for me to accept. I don't understand how Lot's wife turned to salt, it sounds far fetched to me, but I believe it happened, because I believe the testimony of scripture and the power of God. Same goes for creation. God could do anything he wanted. And He told us exactly what He did do, but then we read it and say "God didn't do that or even worse God COULDN'T do that."

Originally Posted by pelathais

Bogus Jason. You've never asked me that question. I might miss somethings along the way but just inserting a claim like that is silly.

I think the post was on page 23 of this thread, it is the one that asked about belief in several miracles of the Bible. I reread the post, which was in response to you, and did bring up Adam and Eve, I can see how reading it my question was more of a statement. But it is there if oyu want to read it, however its a mott point since you answered it here:

Originally Posted by pelathais

And, can you show me where in the Bible anyone named " ˈa-dəm " is even identified? Go back and reread Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Where is anyone said to be in possession of "THE NAME" Adam? Even in Genesis 3:9 (NIV) when God Himself calls out to the man, He doesn't say that the man's "NAME" is "Adam."

Nowhere. You're just reading the Bible through your own cultural bias; or the King James translator's cultural bias. Consider the first occurrence of the word "Adam" in the KJV:

Genesis 2:19 (CLICK the link in the left and read the Bible).

Now, consider another translation:

Genesis 2:19 (NIV)

In the Hebrew, it is always "the man" - literally. Your problem here is that you aren't even asking questions about the Bible ("Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?").

Was his name ADAM, I personally believe the answer to be yes. Scripture always refers to him as ADAM. It is not unusual for other writers of scripture to referr to past events and people by name. Nowhere is the first man called any other name than ADAM.

But lets say just for the sake for the sake of argument the first man was simply called "MAN". Either way the first human being was specially created by God (not evolution or evolutionary process) and that man sinned. By ONE MANS SIN death came, so that by ONE MANS SACRIFICE salvation came. You cannot do away with ADAM without doing away with the gospel. Romans 5. Whether his name was ADAM or not is irrelevant, though again, we have no reason to believe he was named anything else.

Originally Posted by pelathais

You're asking questions about somebody else's Sunday School coloring book. Get back to the Book that matters - the Bible!

How much does the Bible matter when you don't believe:
1)God created using the method and order given in Genesis 1
2)the first man was called Adam
3)there was no worldwide flood
4)the genologies in the Bible are not literal

And these are ONLY the things you've mentioned. Personally I would assume that you also doubt the Sodom and Gomorrah story, Lot's wife, Balaams talking donkey, the account of Jericho, possible even the plagues on Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea. I don't know your position on those things, but everytime I mention them you normally don't comment on them.

The impression your giving off to me is that you only believe in certain miracles in the Old Testament (but not most) and in the miracles of Jesus, including His ressurrection. I don't know. But having the stance you have on the Bible, it makes me wonder why you would say
" Get back to the Book that matters - the Bible!"

Just talking as friends here Pel, I know its a lively discussion.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by DAII

What color is your bicycle?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Interpretation? Let me rephrase my question "How do you interpret Genesis 1 without taking it as a literal account and maintain biblical inerrancy?"

Biblical Inerrancy has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with interpretation. Oneness interpret scriptures all the time, for example, scriptures that speak of the Son creating. Rather than interpret that to mean the Son existed as the Son and created everything we interpret to mean something else. That does not mean we think the text is in error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is considered accurate and totally free of error. Within Christianity, some mainstream Evangelical and Protestant groups adhere to the current inerrancy of Scripture as it reads today. The Roman Catholic view is summarized by the editors of the New American Bible:
-----------------
I never said Genesis 1 was inaccurate or full of errors. I said it needs to be interpreted and I gave an example why

You are interpreting a day to be 24 hours
Yet language says I can use the word Day and not mean 24. It could refer to a TIME of Day...day time

It can be used non-specific like "Hurry up, I don't have all day".

Yet the Day time or Day light is the result of the Sun, but the Son was not created until later on.

God created Light, but the bible does not elaborate on what that was, still God called Light "day". But according to the Hebrew the word Yom does not have to mean a literal 24 hour period. It can be an unspecified amount of time,

So on the first "period of creation" God created Light and does not say what that refers to.

You choose to ignore that part but the fact that it's not specified leaves it up to interpretation.

You choose to believe each Day was a literal 24 hour period, that God was on a human time clock that did not even exist yet since time is based on the rotation of the earth as it rotates around the sun.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I await your IN TER PRE TATION

That is beside the point. Lets get some facts clear. Just because someone interprets a text different than you do does NOT mean that person thinks the bible is full of errors

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

What color is your bicycle?