Questions, Misconceptions, Objections,..etc,

[CANADIEN]

Nope. That's not good enough....unless he cited verses from the Bible that support his opinion. If he did cite, then give those verses here.

So now you are a better biblical expert than Billy Graham?

Let's not quibble about this - we are talking MACRO-EVOLUTION. Therefore, I want you to cite the verse from the Bible that supports your argument, "macro-evolution is not incompatible with the Bible."

Which, as you know well, is not what I argue.

Edited September 24, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Let me worry about the French - just give it.

Just for the fun of it, I was about to do it... actually later this week, to give myself the time to do it right. But then, i read this...

Mind you, it doesn't matter anyway as to the EXACT interpretations.....as explained.

In other words, the KJV translation of the Bible is the only one, in any language, that has betsy's seal of approval because that's the only one betsy can use to further her claims. Any other translation, or even the original texts, are irrelevant because, well, they don't have what betsy wants.

Now, this may not be what you actually hink, but it certainly sounds like it it.

Since, obviously, I wouold be waisting my time looking at another translation of the Bible, I won't. Feel free to misrepresent this anyway you want.

[cybercoma]

Which is odd because most Born Again Evangelicals use the NIV or some other similar text. The KJV is typically used by Catholics and Anglicans. Betsy has shown nothing but contempt for Catholics in the past, so it's funny she would use their Bible to make her points.

[g_bambino]

[W]hy do you try to discredit what I say about the Bible and science?

Because what you say about the Bible and science is weak speculation based on assumptions, willful ignorance, and misunderstandings.

[g_bambino]

What I have said all along is that God's message in the Bible is not about how the Universe works. That it doesn't include a description of how the Universe is expending, that this is not the point of His message.

Show me a message in the Bible that says that.

Come on, CANADIEN; show her where the Bible says the Bible doesn't say what you say it doesn't say!

[cybercoma]

Come on, CANADIEN; show her where the Bible says the Bible doesn't say what you say it doesn't say!

This quote is awesome.

[bleeding heart]

Come on, CANADIEN; show her where the Bible says the Bible doesn't say what you say it doesn't say!

Ah....well done, sir!

[CANADIEN]

Come on, CANADIEN; show her where the Bible says the Bible doesn't say what you say it doesn't say!

Good one

[betsy]

Just for the fun of it, I was about to do it... actually later this week, to give myself the time to do it right. But then, i read this...

In other words, the KJV translation of the Bible is the only one, in any language, that has betsy's seal of approval because that's the only one betsy can use to further her claims. Any other translation, or even the original texts, are irrelevant because, well, they don't have what betsy wants.

KJV, because that's the commonly recommended one since it's the one most used by scholars.

[betsy]

I'm inclined to agree with most of this (and with CANADIEN, too). But people don't "have the same tolerance" for Betsy's views precisely because she is of the "literalist" camp; namely, that the Bible is "scientifically accurate" and that it's "truths" have been "proven by science."

Correction. You are putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say the Bible is scientifically accurate. By that, you're saying the whole book is scientifically proven....when in fact I've said so many times that there are also analogies or euphemisms in the Bible!

There are however, statements in the Bible that had been proven true by modern science - see the topic, THE BIBLE!

People don't seem to have "tolerance" to those whose views they cannot influence.....or negate in a sensible way.

Some people just can't bear to hear revealing truths that knocks down beliefs they cannot defend.

And sure, she hedges, moving back and forth, and adopting whichever (contradictory) argument best suits her at the time. So, you can't look at every word of the Bible literally...except that, oh yes you can...and in fact must.

I am actually consistent. I apply logic to all the rebutals here, which most of them - when it comes down to it - just regurgitate the same old defense stance: what makes you think the Bible is the Word of God.

Don't make any claims that you cannot support, just in case you're called to back it up. That's the rule of the game in a serious discussion.

Canadien made a very serious claim - evolution is not incompatible with the Bible (meaning it is compatible with the Bible). Well, since he knows we're talking about macro-evolution, therefore that's the kind of evolution he's talking about. I asked him to show where in the Bible did he get that.

If there is anyone who hedges, it is Canadien! Now he hedges about proving a negative or something...

Well then, let me re-phrase that:

Show me where it says in the Bible that macro-evolution is compatible with the Bible. Or show where the Bible talks about macro-evolution.

I bet he wouldn't produce that. I bet he'll be hedging again. Of course he couldn't produce such cite....he's making it all up and attributing it to the Bible!

Of course you didn't count that as "hedging." It shows your bias. That hurts credibility, you know.

Her arguments with CANADIEN come very, very close to even denying his own faith...a matter that is of some surprise to him, it seems, as he is educated that his Christianity isn't quite up to the properly exacting (ie literalist) standards.

He responds to me claiming as a christian - claiming to have knowledge and understanding of the Bible!

I respond to him as one Christian to another.

On one hand he repeats that he beleives the Bible to be the word of God....yet on the other, he prepares the ground for skepticism over the words in the Bible.

If one really understands his message, it comes across that, you cannot rely on the Bible because of all the translations! He supports the arguments of the atheists in this forum that, the Bible is unreliable since it's just been written by men, and therefore full of inaccuracies and lies!

He renders the Bible nil and invalid!

I am therefore obligated to point out his false statements - in defense of the Bible - and to prevent others reading this from being misled!

He is either one very confused Christian - or someone who genuinely thinks he is a Christian - or he could also be a "poseur."

I am questioning his faith because of his responses. Not only on this topic....but in topics like gay union (or probably even abortion)! He encourages behaviours and activities that are repeatedly - and clearly, and literally - specified in the Bible as grievous offenses to God!

Funny how he makes such a big deal about literal translations of "stretches," when he doesn't even see the clearly literal - and repeatedly specified - when it hits him!

What Christian would seek to be a stumbling block for those who try to correct misconceptions, and in their own way spread the gospel - or to make it worse - attribute a falsehood to the Bible?

You might be feeling for her because she is so often a lone voice battling several opponents. If so, I get this, and sometimes feel the same way about apparently embattled posters.

But often, they bring it on themselves. And as Betsy doesn't seem overly hurt by all the opposition, it's arguably not an issue anyway.

Oh please....I may be a lone voice for a long time (at least that's what you think)....but do I sound or look like I'm the one losing? :lol:

It's not about the numbers that belong in your camp - but who is being sensible and credible - what makes sense, that's what truly counts in a discussion.

Of course, that's according to those who understand what they read.

And I question your comprehension otherwise I wouldn't have to be responding to you with this.

Edited September 25, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Correction. You are putting words in my mouth.

Something you are an expert at, as we see next.

Canadien made a very serious claim - evolution is not incompatible with the Bible (meaning it is compatible with the Bible). Well, since he knows we're talking about macro-evolution, therefore that's the kind of evolution he's talking about. I asked him to show where in the Bible did he get that.

actually, that's not the claim I made. But then, less we forgot, you know what I claim better than I do, don't you?

Show me where it says in the Bible that macro-evolution is compatible with the Bible. Or show where the Bible talks about macro-evolution.[/b]

The Bible doesn't mention anything about evolution. What I said, the claim I am ACTUALLY making, is that there is nothing incompatible between evolution and CREATION (the fact, known to Christians through FAITH, that God created the Universe and life).

Now, I fully expect you to make a fool of yourself (again) by claiming I was wrong to claim something I actually never claimed. well, you are anything but unpredictable. In the meantime...

Evolution is not mentioned in the Bible. Is that your basis for rejecting this SCIENTIFIC theory? This SCIENCE? Interesting, if that's the case. Let's just take another example. Nowhere in the Bible is the FACTthe Earth moves through space mentioned - nowhere does it says that this FACT is compatible with the Bible (in fact, it is stated in Psaulm 93, verse 1, that "the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved" . Should I conclude, then, that the Earth is not moving through space? And If I should not conclude this, why?

Which brings me to my next question: if (macro-)evolution is not a valid, proven, scientific theory, do you have a scientific theory that explains the changes in the forms of life between the time God created life and today? And if so, you have scientifically measurable evidence to back it up?

Edited September 25, 2012 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

The how is to be answered through FAITH, the knowledge of God, wouldn't you agree.

Yes, I agree.

But that does not mean God couldn't - or wouldn't - give evidence to the present and furture generation that He is indeed God, who Created everything.

Believing and understanding that the Bible is sufficient to answer all is having faith. Wouldn't you agree?

[bleeding heart]

Oh please....I may be a lone voice for a long time (at least that's what you think)....but do I sound or look like I'm the one losing? :lol:

Oh, yes. sincerely; I genuinely mean that.

Of course, that's according to those who understand what they read.

Like the Bible, for instance. Which I don't think you understand at all.

And I question your comprehension otherwise I wouldn't have to be responding to you with this.

If you didn't question my comprehension, I'm afraid I'd have to rethink everything I ever said.

[betsy]

Something you are an expert at.

actually, I that's not the claim I made. But then, less we forgot, you know what I claim better than I do, don't you?

The Bible doesn't mention anything about evolution. What I said, the claim at am ACTUALLY making, is that there is nothing incompatible between evolution and CREATION (the fact, known to Christians through FAITH, that God created the Universe and life).

You and Dre were clearly talking about macro-evolution.

dre, on 22 September 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

Not only is there a vast fossil record that shows evolution in action, but we can see it in action today.

Canadien:

Indeed. There is nothing incompatible between evolution and Creation.

You made a very clear claim. I want you to support that claim....what made you say there is nothing incompatible with Creation and macro-evolution? Since you talked about Creation, as a christian I assume you got that from the Bible - therefore, support your claim!

Edited September 26, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Now, on some of the non-sense said about me

If one really understands his message, it comes across that, you cannot rely on the Bible because of all the translations!

Thanks for providing, again, wih evidence you don't have a clue on what I am saying. On the other hand, one may be forgiven for getting theimpressing from reading your postings that only one translation is actually valid.

He supports the arguments of the atheists in this forum that, the Bible is unreliable since it's just been written by men, and therefore full of inaccuracies and lies!

He renders the Bible nil and invalid!

My argument is that the Bible is not to be taken as scientifically accurate. A point that YOU admitted to.

Funny how he makes such a big deal about literal translations of "stretches," when he doesn't even see the clearly literal - and repeatedly specified - when it hits him!

So, I should not be litteral when trying to understand certain passages in the Bible, just take them as litteral?

What Christian would seek to be a stumbling block for those who try to correct misconceptions, and in their own way spread the gospel - or to make it worse - attribute a falsehood to the Bible?

Actually, I am the one correcting a misconception - namely, that certain passages talking about the spreading out and spreading forth of the Heavens have to be taken litterally. I never said, and wouldn't say, that those passages are falsehoods. Since they come from God, they are not false - they are not to be taken litterally, quite a difference.

Speaking of which.

If one is to take them litterally, then they should provide an accurate description of the Universe, don't you agree? If so, it would be easy to pick up descriptions of the Universe where scientists use the word stretch and demonstrate that they match what is meant by stretch in those Bible passages. It is not enough to just exclaim: "they're using the same word". It has to mean the same THING.

The image used in the Bible is that of a tent being spread over the Earth. Is that an accurate descrption of the Universe? Is that what a scientist means when he states that the Universe is spreading? Do you even KNOW, or have you even CHECKED, what they mean by that?

Edited September 25, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Believing and understanding that the Bible is sufficient to answer all is having faith. Wouldn't you agree?

You are not trying to venture into a discussion on Sola Scriptura, are you (just asking)? Because if this were the case, I'd wait until there's an actual theologian who starts the discussion - and one who is capable of misrepresentating and misrepresentating what I say every second line.

[CANADIEN]

as a christian I assume you got that from the Bible - therefore, support your claim!

God created the Universe, and created life. The Bible, which comes from God, is clear on this. ARE YOU DEYING THIS? (of course you're not, but keep this question in mind when you read the rest)

Science comes from God. ARE YOU DENYING THIS?

God can do whatever He wants, however He wants it. Including, using macro-evolution in the way He created life. ARE YOU DENYING THIS?

Some known scientific facts, such as the facts the Earth is a sphere and it moves through space, do not appear in the Bible, yet clearly they have been proven. Therefore, there are scientific facts (including theories) not contained in the Bible, and saying that they are not mentioned in the Bible (or that there is nothing in the Bible that says those facts are not incompatible with the Bible) is insufficent to invalide a scientific theory. ARE YOU DENYING THIS?

Evolution, or more specifically, since you want to play with words, macro-evolution (defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time") is a scientific theory. Since you reject it, DO YOU HAVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY TO REPLACE IT?

Since God created the Universe, and created life, since God can do whatever He wants, since science comes from God, since macro-(evolution) is a valid scientific theory, and since there are scientifically known facts not mentioned in the Bible, there is no basis for a claim the macro-evolution is incompatible with Creation by God.

Now, your turn... Since you do not accept (macro)-evolution, do you have a scientific theory that provides another explanation of the relationship between dinosaurs and birds, between pre-humanoids and Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or the similarities (and differences) in the genomes of all forms of life?

Edited September 26, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

If you didn't question my comprehension, I'm afraid I'd have to rethink everything I ever said.

Same here.

[g_bambino]

I didn't say the Bible is scientifically accurate. {I]n fact I've said so many times that there are also analogies or euphemisms in the Bible!

Since they make indirect reference to what they're intended to (the analogue or source), rheotrical analogies are inherently open to interpretation. For you, such analogies and their analogues become one when you ignore the analogy's other interpretations and pick the one that suits the end you want to reach. "Stretches out" can be interpreted in more than one way by everyone, except you.

[ed.: +, c/e]

Edited September 25, 2012 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

Since they make indirect reference to what they're intended to (the analogue or source), rheotrical analogies are inherently open to interpretation. For you, such analogies and their analogues become one when you ignore the analogy's other interpretations and pick the one that suits the end you want to reach. "Stretches out" can be interpreted in more than one way by everyone, except you.

[ed.: +, c/e]

Remember, you cannot say the verb is actually stretch out. It's stretch.

[betsy]

God created the Universe, and created life. The Bible, which comes from God, is clear on this. ARE YOU DEYING THIS? (of course you're not, but keep this question in mind when you read the rest)

Science comes from God. ARE YOU DENYING THIS?

God can do whatever He wants, however He wants it. Including, using macro-evolution in the way He created life. ARE YOU DENYING THIS?

Some known scientific facts, such as the facts the Earth is a sphere and it moves through space, do not appear in the Bible, yet clearly they have been proven. Therefore, there are scientific facts (including theories) not contained in the Bible, and saying that they are not mentioned in the Bible (or that there is nothing in the Bible that says those facts are not incompatible with the Bible) is insufficent to invalide a scientific theory. ARE YOU DENYING THIS?

Evolution, or more specifically, since you want to play with words

macro-evolution (defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time") is a scientific theory. Since you reject it, DO YOU HAVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY TO REPLACE IT?

Ahhh, now you're saying, "God can do whatever He wants, however He wants it," to suit your argument, eh? Yet you cannot accept that He can describe - and even explain something about the universe in the Bible.

You argue about the exact "mechanics" that are not specified in the Bible, and yet you don't see what's the very specific and literal commands or God - such as gay union - that are repeatedly stated in the Bible.

Another theory? Hello? Are you all there?

What about DESIGNER theory???? I've been bringing it up for so long! I even said that Christians can go freely where the evidence(s) lead....whereas atheist scientists are stuck inside their little box and clinging to their myth with pathetic rebutts that practically only says, "that's my story and I'm sticking to it!"

Haven't I been complaining that your camp - the atheist evolutionists - don't want to even consider the possibility of Design/Creator since it would mean that there is a God! The camp you're with doesn't want your God to exist!

That's why I wonder and question your so-called faith in the first place!

You're arguing with me for nothing!

You're a waste of time....

Edited September 26, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Since they make indirect reference to what they're intended to (the analogue or source), rheotrical analogies are inherently open to interpretation. For you, such analogies and their analogues become one when you ignore the analogy's other interpretations and pick the one that suits the end you want to reach. "Stretches out" can be interpreted in more than one way by everyone, except you.

[ed.: +, c/e]

Whether it's meant as an analogy or not, doesn't matter.

"Stretches out" or "Stretches forth" appeared in the Bible 11 times, in the right context...by different authors from different time frames.

When compared to the atheist evolutionists' willingness to believe that everything began by an accident - without anything to prove that an accident had ever happened - your resistance to the Bible and your petty complaint over minor details as to specifics are not only pathetic, but laughable.

If you want an analogy and twisting of a verse, here's a good one that applies to you guys regarding the desperation to bitch about very petty details about this "stretch" scenario:

You can see the speck in another's eye, yet you do not see the giant boulders blocking both your eyes!

Yoo-hoo. What was the latest count in the Bible facts listing?? When you take all those in together - all the more convincing it becomes!

The ancient Bible so far scored several points already with modern science - and you still got zero, what with all the modern technology to help you out!

Edited September 26, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Ahhh, now you're saying, "God can do whatever He wants, however He wants it," to suit your argument, eh? Yet you cannot accept that He can describe - and even explain something about the universe in the Bible.

That's the best you can do? We've already established He can do it - and that He did didn't. Stating the evident - He can do it, is not proof that He did it, no more that one can conclude the Earth is a cube from the fact He could have made it a cube (which you agree He could have, since He can do everything He wants, right).

Has it ever crossed your mind that God could have put those passages in the Bible to tell, using imageries familiar to the first users of the Bible, that he created the Universe? After all, God can do anything He wants, including this. The difference between you and I is that I realize, unlike you, that it is not enough to simply claim "God can do what I say He is doing". In this case, one should also look at what the verbs used are both in the biblical texts and the scientific texts, and what they mean in each text.

I have checked the Bible texts, and what scientists mean by stretching of the Universe. If it meant the same thing, I'd say that yes the Bible describs the Universe the way science describes it. Have you even bothered checking what what scientists mean by stretching of the Universe?

You argue about the exact "mechanics" that are not specified in the Bible

Let me make sure I get it right here, while I am laughing. Those passages include, in one translation, a word that also appears in some scientific texts about the expending nature of the Universe. Therefore, those passages describe the Universe. Never mind that the verbs are not the same, no need to bother with understanding what scientists mean when they use that word. The word is the same, so the Bible passages and the texts written by science say the same thing. Never mind that they don't, they do.

Another theory? Hello? Are you all there?

What about DESIGNER theory???? I've been bringing it up for so long!

I said THEORY, that is, as definied by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". The designer "theory" (the quotation marks are used on purpose here) does NOT meet this criteria.

If it does, feel free to point to articles, peer-reviewed articles that is, that detail how the scientific method is used, and what the scientific observations are.

I even said that Christians can go freely where the evidence(s) lead....

I suggest you start doing it yourself.

whereas atheist scientists are stuck inside their little box and clinging to their myth with pathetic rebutts that practically only says, "that's my story and I'm sticking to it!"

Except for one fact - God and His Creation are NOT a myth - this is a very accurate description of what YOU are doing.

Haven't I been complaining that your camp - the atheist evolutionists - don't want to even consider the possibility of Design/Creator since it would mean that there is a God! The camp you're with doesn't want your God to exist!

Oh the wonderful logic. I agree with somone on ONE thing - namely, that evolution is a FACT - therefore by definition I agree with everything that person says.

You're arguing with me for nothing!

Of course, must be it. after all, a Christian CANNOT, by definition, not agree with you 100%. Edited September 26, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Whether it's meant as an analogy or not, doesn't matter.

"Stretches out" or "Stretches forth" appeared in the Bible 11 times, in the right context...by different authors from different time frames.

When compared to the atheist evolutionists' willingness to believe that everything began by an accident - without anything to prove that an accident had ever happened - your resistance to the Bible and your petty complaint over minor details as to specifics are not only pathetic, but laughable.

If you want an analogy and twisting of a verse, here's a good one that applies to you guys regarding the desperation to bitch about very petty details about this "stretch" scenario:

You can see the speck in another's eye, yet you do not see the giant boulders blocking both your eyes!

Yoo-hoo. What was the latest count in the Bible facts listing?? When you take all those in together - all the more convincing it becomes!

The ancient Bible so far scored several points already with modern science - and you still got zero, what with all the modern technology to help you out!

Don't you see, g. bambino? Meanings of texts, possible interpretations of them, whether or not they actually describes what betsy say they describe - all of it is irrelevant. The biblical texts mean exactly what betsy says they mean, because... God can introduce in one translation of the Bible texts that mean what betsy says they mean.

[g_bambino]

Whether it's meant as an analogy or not, doesn't matter.

It very obviously does matter, even to you. If "stretches out", "stretched out", or "spread out" (the inconsistent use of tense in different versions of the Bible being a salient factor to consider, since the past tense - "stretched" and "spread" - indicates the stretching and spreading stopped at some point, entirely unlike what the scientific theory of universal expansion says) is just a rhetorical analogy, it's open to different interpretations, not one. If it's a direct description of a factual event, which you say it is, it's not an analogy.

You seem to have been caught in your own web.

[ed.: +]

Edited September 26, 2012 by g_bambino