Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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....

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

Jason. (coadie sent me a Photoshopped "thumbs up" - only the "thumb" wasn't the digit that was "up").

You will never completely answer the "Zerubbabel Question." There are some elements that can be added if we look at all the genealogies together. We can also learn something about how kinship and tribal identity was determined in ancient Israel.

But we can't solve the issue with a "LITERAL" accounting showing a "Father-to-son" relationship in each named "generation." Literalism dies here. And this is just one example ... one that COADIE! brought up.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by DAII

These Darwinists that want to cut out the 6 day creation story are like the car salesmen that rolled back odometers. Both parties try to decieve on age.

The bible is correct regardless how much you and Pelthais whine and cry.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

These Darwinists that want to cut out the 6 day creation story are like the car salesmen that rolled back odometers. Both parties try to decieve on age.

The bible is correct regardless how much you and Pelthais whine and cry.

- yeah, I'm crying alright.

Just what are those "6 languages" that you guys speak in your home, coadie? Ever think of taking up English?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

And yet Ken Ham flubs almost all of his personal appearances and public questions. I saw him in Cherry Hills, Colorado, a while back along with Chuck Missler. The people - an all Christian crowd - were underwhelmed, to say the least.

Missler went on about UFOs and "giants" that "wrecked the moon." Then Ham droned on about "Jesus Ponies."



A "Jesus Pony"

It was humiliating to be a "believer" that day.

Pel this seems to be a common tactic with you. You don't answer creationists arguments, but tear down their person.

I'm not endorsing Ken Ham, I just found his website yesterday. If you watched the videos the have some solid arguments in them, not any of the content you mentioned. If not, thats fine, they're for the benefit of the reader.

However, just like I said about Hovind, personal morality (or even orthodoxy) or lack thereof doesn't nullify ones arguments null and void.

I can promise you there is little myself and coadie agree on outside of this topic (and I don't agree with all his posts) and Obama. After that we're probably polar opposites.

An agument should stand based on its own claims, not on the person making it.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by coadie

We don't want these geneologie issues to be a stumbling block. Nothing scarier than the san Diego chicken being related to the Cardinals and the Bears.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

These Darwinists that want to cut out the 6 day creation story are like the car salesmen that rolled back odometers. Both parties try to decieve on age.

The bible is correct regardless how much you and Pelthais whine and cry.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Taking to "answering" your own posts now because you can't answer the questions that others bring up?

Haeckel was a Lamarckian and rival of Charles Darwin.

See: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=31862&page=18

Scroll down and pick up with post #177.

Rivalry is irrelevant to the discussion, the fact is that Haekels work is to this day used as support for evolution.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Pel this seems to be a common tactic with you. You don't answer creationists arguments, but tear down their person.

RE- Post a single "creationist argument" that's been made on this thread (or anywhere for that matter) that I have NOT answered.

RE-POST one. Just one. You can't even find it can you?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I'm not endorsing Ken Ham, I just found his website yesterday. If you watched the videos the have some solid arguments in them, not any of the content you mentioned. If not, thats fine, they're for the benefit of the reader.

However, just like I said about Hovind, personal morality (or even orthodoxy) or lack thereof doesn't nullify ones arguments null and void.

I can promise you there is little myself and coadie agree on outside of this topic (and I don't agree with all his posts) and Obama. After that we're probably polar opposites.

An agument should stand based on its own claims, not on the person making it.

So you agree then that the genealogies of the Bible are not and never were intended to be taken literally?

Give me some "creationist arguments." I'd love that. Don't claim to have posted something and then baselessly assert that I've been the one to dodge. You're being Orwellian here.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by DAII

Dan, do you have anything to add to the conversation. Surely you have something critical to say, in keeping with character and all.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

Bible doesn't say 24 hours. It says evening and morning.

I don't need an interpretor.

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Do we need an interpretor for the age of Adam at time of death?