one in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

[Chris_]

...just the ones you ignored, but that's okay.  I never really expected answers.

The thread is long and the soul wearies -- ask again whatever clever little word game you think you can use to "trap" someone who both lives God and understands science.

Have at it little man.

[MrsSmith]

I have yet to see any of the portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were anything close to the Bible. At least those that were NOT interpreted. I've only read transliterations without the "researchers" "guessing" at missing portions.
 I would, however like to see the entire known scrolls done in the same way as in the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered".

Freedumb, can you point me to a transliteration of Genesis?

The Dead Sea Scrolls contained:
The complete text of Isaiah
36 Psalms
a large part of Leviticus
a paraphrase of Job

Murabba'at
a scroll with the last half of Joel and through Haggai

These are nearly complete, not tiny fragments.

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

Not that the fragments are all that tiny...

http://www.deadseascrollsfoundation.com/scrolls.html

[MrsSmith]

The Bible tells us how old Adam lived -- do you now decry that figure?

How does an immortal count his age?

[Chris_]

The Dead Sea Scrolls contained:
The complete text of Isaiah
36 Psalms
a large part of Leviticus
a paraphrase of Job

Murabba'at
a scroll with the last half of Joel and through Haggai

These are nearly complete, not tiny fragments.

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

Not that the fragments are all that tiny...

http://www.deadseascrollsfoundation.com/scrolls.html

So you admit that it is impossible for modern man to even see the original Bible in its context.

Thanks -- that helps my argument a lot.

[Chris_]

How does an immortal count his age?

So you admit the Bible lied to you and did NOT specifically state the age of Adam when he died?

[MrsSmith]

So you admit that it is impossible for modern man to even see the original Bible in its context.

Thanks -- that helps my argument a lot.

The Dead Sea Srolls proved that our current copy did not differ from ancient copies.  The Bible has been carefully protected. 

[MrsSmith]

So you admit the Bible lied to you and did NOT specifically state the age of Adam when he died?

Admit?  The Bible does not say how long Adam lived in the Garden.  It does not say if his age was counted from Creation, or from the beginning of death.  That's a lie?   

[Chris_]

The Dead Sea Srolls proved that our current copy did not differ from ancient copies.  The Bible has been carefully protected. 

Please explain the difference between the word "kinds" in the closer to original Aramaic versus KJ -- and how much meaning is lost and where that meaning can be recouped.  You only have to cross 4 languages and cultures across a few thousand years.

Feel free to Google -- but you will fail if you don't actually SPEAK Aramaic.

And I am waiting for how old you think the Earth is -- in real years. And, how old was Adam when he died? And what do we know from that figure?

This is really easy -- why do you dance so?

[Chris_]

Admit?  The Bible does not say how long Adam lived in the Garden.  It does not say if his age was counted from Creation, or from the beginning of death.  That's a lie?   

It sure did.  It can be inferred from the Bible itself.  If you can't do it (think Numbers and then go backwards into Genesis), then you are just sprinkling fairy dust.

[MrsSmith]

It sure did.  It can be inferred from the Bible itself.  If you can't do it (think Numbers and then go backwards into Genesis), then you are just sprinkling fairy dust.

Cool.  Quote the Scripture that tells how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, and the one that specifies his age was figured all during that deathless time, or only upon the point when he actually started to age.

[MrsSmith]

Please explain the difference between the word "kinds" in the closer to original Aramaic versus KJ -- and how much meaning is lost and where that meaning can be recouped.  You only have to cross 4 languages and cultures across a few thousand years.

Feel free to Google -- but you will fail if you don't actually SPEAK Aramaic.

And I am waiting for how old you think the Earth is -- in real years. And, how old was Adam when he died? And what do we know from that figure?

This is really easy -- why do you dance so?

Don't you mean READ Aramaic.     Now, you explain exactly how much of your knowledge is held to this "original language" standard.  When you study evolution, you actually dig the bones?  Run the tests?  When you study astronomy, you travel to the stars?  Or more "modern," when you buy a Sanyo, you read the manual in Japanese...because otherwise, you're going to miss some of the cultural differences, don't you know?  And you learned German in case you ever drive a VW, right?  Or do you do like everyone else and rely on the experts to tell you how things work and translate languages?   

(Oh, and for the age of the earth thing, which I've explained several times, it seems you don't even do so well in English.)

[Chris_]

Cool.  Quote the Scripture that tells how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, and the one that specifies his age was figured all during that deathless time, or only upon the point when he actually started to age.

Genesis 5:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the time that created God Adam, in the likeness of God he brought forth him.
2 Male and female He created them, and He blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the time when they were created.
3 And lived Adam thirty and a hundred years  and did bring forth a son in his own likeness, according to his image; and called his name Seth;
4 And were the days of Adam after he did bring forth Seth eight hundred years ; and he did bring forth sons and daughters;
~
5 And were all the days that Adam lived nine hundred years and thirty years; and he died.

And I didn't even have to use my GOOD Google-fu.

Let me give some lawyerly advice -- never ask a question you don't know the answer to.

Now that you have been creamed -- HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?  GIVE A NUMBER.  Not rhetorical nonsense -- we have lug-nut for that -- a NUMBER.  And, as I have so magnanimously stated in the past, you can just express it in magnitude.

[Chris_]

Don't you mean READ Aramaic.   :-)  Now, you explain exactly how much of your knowledge is held to this "original language" standard.  When you study evolution, you actually dig the bones?  Run the tests?  When you study astronomy, you travel to the stars?  Or more "modern," when you buy a Sanyo, you read the manual in Japanese...because otherwise, you're going to miss some of the cultural differences, don't you know?  And you learned German in case you ever drive a VW, right?  Or do you do like everyone else and rely on the experts to tell you how things work and translate languages?   :-)

(Oh, and for the age of the earth thing, which I've explained several times, it seems you don't even do so well in English.)

So, now you say that physics is analagous to an owner's manual?  It is YOU -- not me -- who asserts that the Bible is the LITERAL WORD of God. I therefore ask for simple examples of how that LITERAL word has been accurately translated across multiple languages and thousands of years.  The onus is not on me, but you.

So, please tell us all how your statement that the Bible has been accurately translated from its last known (I will grant you antiquity since I am feeling magnanimnous and you are getting killed here) language (Aramaic) to English by tracing a single word: "Kind" across those translations.

MY contention is the Bible is how God wants us to interact with him and is a theological text which is quite properly culturally interpreted.  There is no cultural normative for "Radon gives off x.y.z energy over a z.y.x lifespan."

I have asked so little of you -- such simple questions.  Let me help you:

The earth is XXXXX years old.  Your job is to replace the XXXXX with a number.

Adam was YYY years old when he died.  Your job is to replace YYY with a number (supplied above).

The Etymology of the word "kind" as first defined in te Bible in both Genesis I and Genesis II from Aramaic to KJE is UUU to III to ZZZZ.  Your job is to supply the conext and meaning each step of the way. If you need help, I can provide the etymological tree.

Lets review:

YOU say the Bible is literal.  You need to answer the 3 questions above to support your contention.

I say the Bible is allegorical and a liturgical/theological  text -- my burden is merely to give God what He asks of me based on my understanding of His Word.

Simple.

Answer my questions or just admit you are a YEC nutjob.


 

[Sam Adams]

Do you want me to explain how the Bible's account of creation is better than Sedna, et al? Are you kidding?

The Bible is the word of God. As far as I know, no one has ever made such a claim for Sedna, or the Gilgamesh Epic, or Norse mythology, or for any such thing. If you are familar with the history of science, you know that the Bible is the impetus for modern science. You also know that many scientists were committed Christians. Like Isaac Newton, for example.

If you don't think that the theory of evolution has problems, then you are either ignorant or just plain dishonest. Please tell me how I have misinterpreted your remarks. 

[Chris_]

The thread is long and the soul wearies -- ask again whatever clever little word game you think you can use to "trap" someone who both lives God and understands science.

Have at it little man.

You're a big boy, so I bet you can find them.  There were no "clever little word game"s.
If you even hint at insults in this thread or any other in this forum, it will be locked so fast your head will spin.  Consider this your only warning.

[Chris_]

Do you want me to explain how the Bible's account of creation is better than Sedna, et al? Are you kidding?


The Bible is the word of God. As far as I know, no one has ever made such a claim for Sedna, or the Gilgamesh Epic, or Norse mythology, or for any such thing.

So the Christian account is superior because you say so.  I will inform the billions of Hindus and Bhuddisst you have decreed their religion bogus.

If you are familar with the history of science, you know that the Bible is the impetus for modern science. You also know that many scientists were committed Christians. Like Isaac Newton, for example.

My contention is there is no conflict between science and Christianity.  Science tells us how things work.  The Bible tells us how to deal with God and each other.

If you don't think that the theory of evolution has problems, then you are either ignorant or just plain dishonest. Please tell me how I have misinterpreted your remarks. 

Name them. Please be very specific.  Also, please be prepared to name the problems with The Theroy of Gravity, String Theory, and 2VL in the Relation Model.   

[Chris_]

You're a big boy, so I bet you can find them.  There were no "clever little word game"s.
If you even hint at insults in this thread or any other in this forum, it will be locked so fast your head will spin.  Consider this your only warning.

Ah -- you use your mod stick when cornered.  I am still waiting for an answer.

[Chris_]

Ah -- you use your mod stick when cornered.

I'm hardly "cornered".  Give me a reason, and I sure will.  Count on it.

  I am still waiting for an answer.

So am I.

[Chris_]

I'm hardly "cornered".  Give me a reason, and I sure will.  Count on it.So am I.

I guess that ends this part of the discussion.  I have happily repeated my statements when anyone on the thread needs it.

You won't so I guess you have dealt yourself out.

[Chris_]

I guess that ends this part of the discussion.  I have happily repeated my statements when anyone on the thread needs it.

You won't so I guess you have dealt yourself out.

Sorry, I left my silver spoon at home.   

[Sam Adams]

So the Christian account is superior because you say so.  I will inform the billions of Hindus and Bhuddisst you have decreed their religion bogus.

My contention is there is no conflict between science and Christianity.  Science tells us how things work.  The Bible tells us how to deal with God and each other.

Name them. Please be very specific.  Also, please be prepared to name the problems with The Theroy of Gravity, String Theory, and 2VL in the Relation Model.   

You want me to name the problems with the Theory of Evolution? Again, you must be joking. Well, here we go, to name two. (I trust you know there are many more. I refer you to the books by Michael Behe, Paul Johnson, and the DVD entitled, "Expelled.")

First, what does it mean to say "the survival of the fittest"? What are "the fittest"? Those who survive, it turns out. So, in other words, the fittest are those who survive, and the survivors are those who are the fittest. That's called a tautology.

Second, there is a lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional species. Darwin told us to expect to see this, if he was correct. But we don't, so he wasn't. That's why Stephen Jay Gould has his "quantum leap" between species idea. But there is no record in the fossils of that, either. Gould jumped the shark on that one.

By the way, since turnabout is fair play, please name the problems with the Bible's account of origins. And, oh, be very specific.

[MrsSmith]

Genesis 5:
And I didn't even have to use my GOOD Google-fu.

Let me give some lawyerly advice -- never ask a question you don't know the answer to.

Now that you have been creamed -- HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?  GIVE A NUMBER.  Not rhetorical nonsense -- we have lug-nut for that -- a NUMBER.  And, as I have so magnanimously stated in the past, you can just express it in magnitude.

Strangely enough, the verses you quoted answered neither question. 

[MrsSmith]

So, now you say that physics is analagous to an owner's manual?  It is YOU -- not me -- who asserts that the Bible is the LITERAL WORD of God. I therefore ask for simple examples of how that LITERAL word has been accurately translated across multiple languages and thousands of years.  The onus is not on me, but you.

So, please tell us all how your statement that the Bible has been accurately translated from its last known (I will grant you antiquity since I am feeling magnanimnous and you are getting killed here) language (Aramaic) to English by tracing a single word: "Kind" across those translations.

I'm very sorry that you can't understand the simple point that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the care with which the Biblical scrolls were copied.  If you refuse to understand simple English, I can certainly see why you have trouble with Aramaic.

MY contention is the Bible is how God wants us to interact with him and is a theological text which is quite properly culturally interpreted.  There is no cultural normative for "Radon gives off x.y.z energy over a z.y.x lifespan."

I have asked so little of you -- such simple questions.  Let me help you:

The earth is XXXXX years old.  Your job is to replace the XXXXX with a number.

Adam was YYY years old when he died.  Your job is to replace YYY with a number (supplied above).

The earth is as old as the best Scriptural addition of years, plus the time Adam spent in the Garden - when he was immortal and unaging, before death entered the world.  Now, your job is to tell me how many years Adam spent in the Garden, and to find the scripture that states his age was counted from Creation, or from when he started to age.

The Etymology of the word "kind" as first defined in te Bible in both Genesis I and Genesis II from Aramaic to KJE is UUU to III to ZZZZ.  Your job is to supply the conext and meaning each step of the way. If you need help, I can provide the etymological tree.

Lets review:

YOU say the Bible is literal.  You need to answer the 3 questions above to support your contention.

I say the Bible is allegorical and a liturgical/theological  text -- my burden is merely to give God what He asks of me based on my understanding of His Word.

Simple.

Answer my questions or just admit you are a YEC nutjob.


 

Oh, I am definitely in the Young Earth crowd.  No doubt about that.  God tells us how He created the world, and I believe Him.  I find it hard to believe that anyone doubts it.  God is a timeless being Who knew exactly who you were, and how you would think, when He was giving the account of the Creation to Moses.  Yet you believe that Moses, who likely had the best possible education for his time, was too stupid to understand "the real truth," so God lied to him.  You also believe that Christ, Who was with God during the creation, left all those mistakes and lies in the OT and didn't fix any of them, but rather went around quoting them as though they were true.  (Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. )

I don't know what kind of god you believe in, one whose words you can pick through and discard at will, one who couldn't understand where science would lead humans, one who deliberately lied and whose son continued the lies... but I find I do not at all understand why you'd bother to follow him.   

[MrsSmith]

So, now you say that physics is analagous to an owner's manual?  

I am still waiting for your list of knowledge that you hold to the same standard as the translation of Scripture.  Exactly how did you learn what you know about evolution? The Theroy of Gravity? String Theory?  2VL in the Relation Model?  And please recall that reference to experts is not sufficient, you must have "learned the basic language and done the studies" yourself.   

[Chris_]

You want me to name the problems with the Theory of Evolution? Again, you must be joking. Well, here we go, to name two. (I trust you know there are many more. I refer you to the books by Michael Behe, Paul Johnson, and the DVD entitled, "Expelled.")

First, what does it mean to say "the survival of the fittest"? What are "the fittest"? Those who survive, it turns out. So, in other words, the fittest are those who survive, and the survivors are those who are the fittest. That's called a tautology.

Second, there is a lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional species. Darwin told us to expect to see this, if he was correct. But we don't, so he wasn't. That's why Stephen Jay Gould has his "quantum leap" between species idea. But there is no record in the fossils of that, either. Gould jumped the shark on that one.

By the way, since turnabout is fair play, please name the problems with the Bible's account of origins. And, oh, be very specific.

You are tossing softballs.

First, what does it mean to say "the survival of the fittest"? What are "the fittest"?

That is not a tautology when applied to the science of the matter.  Aspirin provides pain relief.  It does so by alleviating pain.  So the pain-relieving condition of aspirin is tautological?

And nowhere did Darwin ever use the term "survival of the fittest" although as a general layperson's description of the the stochastic nature of evolution.  The inability to understand stochastic processes is pretty standard and a very low-level "argument."l

Second, there is a lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional species

Lack of evidence means nothing other than breaks in sequences.  If I give you 1,3,7,11..37 does that mean that the intervening numbers cannot be inferred?  Please -- tell me which fossils are missing?  There are only several billion of them -- take your time.  I will even give you a mulligan -- show which fossils do NOT support the progression of evolution as understood by modern science?

By the way, since turnabout is fair play, please name the problems with the Bible's account of origins. And, oh, be very specific

The Bible does not explain strata, nor does it explain microbe traces.  It does not describe the animals which left behind fossil traces that are billions of years old.  The Bible doesn't explain the difference between Newtonian approaches to physics versus Einsteinan ones.  It does not explain why things moving away from a center shift into the red part of the spectrum and those closer to that center stay in the violet spectrum.  It does not describe why light is the only known form that is made of particles yet move sin waves.

Unless it does -- please provide the Biblical citations which describe these, the most basic of science observations.

(Nor does it need to.  The Bible is God's statement to His children on His relationship to them.  It does not profess itself to be a science text.)