Starting with Noah, his wife, his children and their wives after the flood (which can be dated to roughly 4,400 years ago from the bible) it’s a simulation to see if the populations of early civilisations can be accounted for. Even with miraculous rates of population growth (each woman having over 40 children in her lifetime) it can still only account for a fraction of the numbers required.
It’s a simple way of showing that a 6,000 year timescale does not tally with anything we know of archeology or history.
I would just like to point out that for the overwhelming majority of adherents to the Christian faith, who may differ among themselves on various theological questions, the Dispensationalist BS propounded here by “nolies” is anathema. It amounts to ignoring Jesus Christ in favor of Paul, no matter how you slice it and supposedly found it in “God’s plan” – and few of us play that game. No biggie; I think nearly everyone had pretty well rejected him as a source of anything more than amusement. But lest anyone think that he’s propounding anything like authentic doctrine in what he’s been saying to DDG, I thought it wise to say that. Friar Ted has, I think, a better understanding of Dispensationalism than I do, and I’ll defer to him on discussing it, if he chooses to do so.
Since in this understanding of the bible you see why “who may differ among themselves on various theological questions” they differ you know were and why they see it the way they do. Paul and all the apostles and Jesus wanted unity in the BODY of Christ but we obviously don’t have that now do we. When you understand where and when God went from LAW to GRACE and how and why it happened the bible comes alive. We need to get on the same page as God since he isn’t confused and is not the author of confusion.
But since those who are reputed to be great Christian like St Augustine interpreted the bible thru Aristotle and Plato they were doomed to fail. Then those who came after, and believed what he said, since they were these great men, they in turn, were trapped buy Augustine’s fallacy and it just kept being perpetuated.
It wasn’t God’s plan to go to grace but he had no choice…
And Darby and YEC literalism is an improvement? To the point that you’re even attacking another Fundamentalist here? I guess “everybody’s out of step but Johnny”!
Just because Paul’s letters dealt with the issue of “saved by grace” doesn’t mean that he was the first person to be saved by grace. How can you possibly think that?
You are saying that Paul was the first person in the Bible to be saved? That’s absurd.
You’re saying that none of the disciples were saved? You’re saying that Stephen wasn’t saved? You’re saying that none of the early Christians whom Saul was persecuting were saved?
That’s just dumb.
Romans 10:9: “…if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” In order to have Paul be the first person “saved by grace”, you’re going to have to throw out the Christian witness of the entire first few years of Christianity–all the disciples who went from town to town spreading Christianity after Pentecost, all the folks whom Saul was persecuting, all the thousands of people in the first part of Acts who were “added to the church daily”. All those people, you’re saying, were not “saved”. Until Saul came along, and turned into Paul–THEN, you’re saying, somebody finally got saved.
That’s just…dumb. There’s no other word for it.
Yes, indeed, the “Gospel” is the Good News of the risen Jesus. But in the passage you’re quoting–from Matthew 10–the disciples are not being told to preach “the Gospel”. They are being told to preach “the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Which is completely different: “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” is the message that the spiritual kingdom of God has come. It is not the message that Jesus has risen from the dead; it is not the “Gospel”, the “good news”. Two completely different messages.
The Great Commission, being the message to “preach the gospel”, the “gospel” being the “good news” of the risen Christ, is given AFTER He has risen from the dead. The message has changed. And so has the destination: previously the disciples were told to tell Israel that the kingdom of heaven was at hand–but now they are being told to go and tell ALL NATIONS that Jesus has risen. The message has CHANGED.
Mark 16:14-15: “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Matthew 28:16-20 :“Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
No.
You have not answered my question.
My question was:
Your response…
…was a complete non sequitur. I didn’t ask you whether you believe that God created us, or whether you believe that we evolved–I asked you whether you believe in free will, or whether you believe in predestination. You answered a question I did not ask, and you avoided answering the question I did ask.
When you answer my question, then I’ll consider answering yours.
And I’ll also consider answering your questions when you get over your sneering attitude:
You proceed from strength to strength, Nolies. :rolleyes:
Ooohhhh … arguing science with the rest of us wasn’t enough for him … now he’s gonna argue religion with **Polycarp **… look out!
And I know this is necrotic equine flagellation, but I haven’t felt quite satisfied with the answers to:
Even if we were to grant that the only available theories were evoluton and creationism, and that somehow evolution was disproved, that would *still *not be a scientific validation of creationism. Unless a consistent explanation could be provided as to how literal creationism was comaptible with the *entire *fossil record, the present diversity of species on the planet and their geographic distribution, the literal mountains of evidence for the geologic timescale, the directly observable tree-ring data that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, the directly observable, and inderectly inferrable distance of astonomical objects (and the fact that the vast bulk of the observable universe is more than 6,000 light-years away), the existence of the main sequence of stellar evolution, etc., etc., etc., creationism could not be considered scientifically validated. The **only **acceptable answer under such a scenario would be “we don’t know.”
Y’lnow, this thread actually spun several interesting discussions. It only gets silly whenever Nolies shows up to hijack it with odd comments.
From Nolies we have
[ul][li] the utterly wrong claim that speciation is not evolution (which eliminates Nolies from the pool of posters who are competent to discuss evolution (or even creationism)[/li][li] multiple posts against science in which he displays an utter ignorance of the subject[/li][li] the utterly wrong claim that the majority of Christians believe in predestination (heck, few of Calvin’s descendants still believe that and certainly a claim that such people make up a majority of anything is false)[/li][li] attacks on every other Christian posting here, with odd comments indicating that he neither believes nor accepts the actual tenets of Christianity[/li][li] and a cryptic style of posting that simply leads to erroneous conclusions on the part of other posters because Nolies is either not capable of or chooses to avoid providing a frame of reference for his posts.[/ul][/li]So what we really have is an individual who is ignorant of science and is posting from the perspective of a religious belief that shadows Christianity but does not participate in it (which precludes the use of the term Fundamentalist when referring to him)
I suggest that we simply ignore his posts, and resume the discussions that actually are presented with some modicum of coherence. If Nolies wishes to participate, he can answer the questions already asked of him, then place his future comments into a context that normal readers of English can understand without having to read whatever odd religious tracts from his splinter faction of Christianity drive his thought process.
As he said yes he created us whole or Adam he did Eve he made from Adam.
Well, free will of course he did, there are numerus references to people doing things that are not the will of God. Each one of us will make the determination to either love God and humble ourselves before him, Or mock him and think that we are smarter than him and go to hell because we choose to not because God predestined them. He predestined those who would believe in his son. In other words he new he was going to come himself and pay the price for sin. He new that everyone that would believe that he did that would be saved. He predestined the way not the people. you can read about it in genesis 3.
Now as for your biblical use of Romans to support your doctrine, You can’t use Paul to support what was going on before he even entered the picture. He was persecuting them not because they weren’t following the Law but because they were worshiping a MAN Jesus. Why is it that when Paul came to Jerusleum he followed the law, but when he was with his converts he didn’t?
And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him,* Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:** 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.*
Paul wrote that food sacrificed to idols is ok for a Christian to eat. The council said no it isn’t and Paul didn’t object to this and if you notice the converts were all zelous for the law. You see that you trying to use Romans, which Paul wrote, who was a minister to the Gentials shows you are confused and you have been studying the bible for quite some time…
What did they spread the risen Christ, Acts 2 :38 You must repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Is that what Paul would or did say? no it isn’t.1 Corth 1 :17 For God did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. How many churchs have split on these two verses which seem to contradict each other? To me they make perfect sence…
This is the saddest of all. When you can’t just take the word at what it says in context you spiritualize everthing that way you can just ignore what it really says. That is probably the biggest reason that non believers reject Christianity since they can read what it says and it clearly doesn’t say that. They ask a christian and they come up with some spritulized mumbogumbo and they walk awy saying these guy are just making this stuff up they don’t even know. So in the first part of Acts 1-6 when they ask, Lord are you going to restore the kingdom now? they were talking about that spritual kingdom you refer to correct? NO not at all… Israel was promised an earthly kingdom look here.
Acts 3 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Peter was saying that if you all repent the second coming will happen… Are you starting to get the picture?
Do you honestly believe in a Monster God who would send His Children to Eternal Torment because they exercised their God given senses/reason and did not find proof of His being there? You would worship such a being? I thought the prayer was supposed to go “Our Father, who art in heaven…” not “Oh homicidal sadistic maniac who dwelleth somewhere where he is able to smite me…” What type of Perfect Father would let His Children suffer torments for eternity? Is not God, Love?
Sure, whatever. Doesn’t matter. The point is that if you believe the literal account of Genesis, wherein all lifeforms are created in the first seven days AND reject the idea that evolution can add new functionality (let alone the sorts of species level adapations that make certain parasites unique to humans), then you are stuck with the conclusion that Adam and Eve had to be crawling with nasty human-unique STDs as well as every other microbial and viral disease that ever was that’s adapted to humans. Since they had to have been created around the same time as everything else, and Adam and Eve are the only creatures that could have allowed them to survive into the modern age…
The same argument would suggest the same thing about Noah’s family.
Nolies, answer one simple question. You said “God had no choice” earlier. Does that mean that Satan is more powerful than God? It certainly seems to imply it. Why would God have no choice?
NoLies, your last three posts have nothing to do with evolution or science, WTF?
Why? It seems clear to me that you already have an anwer in your head and are just waiting for someone to respond so you can pounce on them. Or, if by some small chance they hit the nail on the head, no doubt will either ignore them or twist theology in whatever way suits your purpose. I will not get caught in such a trap (frail and opaque though it is), and I hope no one else tries.
Is this an insult? I’m pretty sure Jesus taught primarily through allegory. I can only assume you are implying that to call the bible an allegory is to call it fictitious. Check it out Allegory no metion of fiction here. Symbolism is mentioned yes, but real events can be symbolic for broader circumstances. So I don’t think your retort means what you think it means; I can say the bible is allegory and still be in line with your beliefs (but make no mistake, I find some of your beliefs disturbing and abhorrent). By the way, in your literal interpretation, are you suggesting that Jesus, a great public speaker, never used such common rhetorical tools such as hyperbole and sarcasm?
I find it interesting how you claim the bible is literal to be taken word for word, and yet you call things metaphors whenever you need to explain discrepancies. Particularly in the drunken Noah thread
post# 87, but in this thread also. In fact, I predict that if you ever do answer your own question (which hopefully you will be forced to do by lack of participation) you will tell us that Jesus wasn’t lying because he was alluding something else, with metaphors. Interesting ideas for someone who interprets everything else in the bible literally. :rolleyes:
No doubt you’ll change your interpretation of your own question in an attempt to refute me, so be it.
Did you mean “genitals” perhaps?
I usually don’t say much in GD (I’m not quite “great” enough), but damn…
For some reason it gets certain people’s underwear in knots to think that Adam and Eve had sex. I’ve even seen theories that say Adam was able to raise and lower his member, and so was not subject to the thrills of passion. More reasonable, I think, is the idea that they had sex, but it wasn’t lusty or driven by carnal desires. I guess more of a platonic style of love-making.*
*Saints preserve me! I’ve just compared Christian theology to a Pagan philosopher, I must be hell-bound!
Um…no. Probably the biggest reason people reject Christianity is the fact that people like you make God out to be the biggest bully on the block, and we’d rather burn in Hell for eternity than kowtow to some celestial Don Corleone. That you would act like the only interpretation of the Bible that’s ever even come close to moving me to become a Christian is turning people away from the faith…well, that just proves to me that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Actually, I don’t believe that there was a literal “Garden of Eden.” I was merely saying that any speculation about sex is just that - speculation. The Bible is silent about the matter so everyone is free to spin fantasies about what might have been.
Listen people, when debating with a Biblical creationist, it’s a mistake to allow it to move onto their “home turf”. They’re much happier arguing from their knowledge of the Bible than what passes for their knowledge of science. But whether one’s interpretation of Christian doctrine is correct is hardly relevent to whether there’s scientific evidence for evolution. Let’s get back to that.
I’ve been lurking in this thread and the original staff report, where he was arguing against the standard interpretation of verses based upon his own, ignorant pedagodgy. Essentially, this has turned into the SDMB version of the game of “whack the mole” where Nolies springs up, quotes something: Speciation is not evolution; uncovering his nakedness means having sex with his wife; you’re an immature Christian. He then promply disappears and a little while later, springs up elsewhere and spouts more idiocy. It makes for a lousy debate but certainly sharpens our “quick response to idiotic statements” skill.
