Questions, Misconceptions, Objections,..etc,

[betsy]

The assumption that the Bible provides a description of the way the Universe expends is based on one translation, in one language, when other translations use words that do not have the exact same meaning...

You keep saying other translations don't have the same meaning. How would you know? You don't even understand your own ENGLISH Bible....and here you are making conclusions about the interpretations of others!

I gave you the Hebrew word, natah, for "stretch," and also provided the explanation how it differs.

Cite.

Edited September 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Nope, we are talking about whether or not the expension of the Universe is described in the Bbile.

Which is God's revelation to us - in the present age - that, HE IS GOD! HE CREATED EVERYTHING!

The Bible is showing us Who the Creator is by His intimate knowledge of His creation! Therefore, this deals with ORIGIN!

Since He knows everything - including the future - perhaps this is His way of talking to the present time - knowing that at this time, there will be the evolutionists who'll try to hoodwink us with their so-called origin theories!

Perhaps, God is practically saying, "Hey guys, you're not here merely by accident!"

BTW, news to you. You do not decide, or dictate what people talk about in this thread. Stick to deciding for me what I think and what I have problems with, will you?

Btw, news to you. Dre was responding to my post. So I can tell her what my post was all about.

Mind your own business. You're already confused with your own as it is to start worrying about others.

Edited September 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I don't think it is accidental that you found this verse in the Bible this morning. I think you went looking for it. Difference.

I did open my Bible to continue my reading and that's that.

I'm not forcing you to believe me. I'm just telling you. Take it or leave it.

And you know what the conitnuation of that verse is? Just so to explain, I don't normally read the Bible on Sundays since I listen to Living Truth and go to church.

I re-read it though this morning before continuing on to the next section....

Romans 1

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Canadien:

Interestingly, when I opened my Bbile this morning, it was on a passage about Wisdom working through the ages. A reminder of what I KNOW through faith - that the Universe is God's creation.

Oh? Share the verse please? Cite.

Edited September 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I'd think most people would know that my disagreement is with your reading of the Bible, I'd also think they would notice that I have said, more than one time, that I KNOW through faith God exists and is the Creator of the Universe, that and He tells so through the Bible. And I'd think they would notice that I do not believe His message in the Bible is about the way the Universe he created works, or that His Word includes a scientific valid description of the Universe.

I am sure many here do not agree with me on all or any of these things. Only one person keeps stating that i say, or mean, something different.

I won't dignify this with an answer.

Your disagreement is not with my reading of the Bible. Your disagreement is with the message!

So you keep saying you've got faith. Having faith should reflect in your actions and words.....your reasonings and rationale.

That the word "stretches...." appeared 11 times and in the right context is still unacceptable to you. You try all these pathetic rebutts why, and clearly skating around the the logic of the point.

You get in such a knot over the "stretching outs..." and the "stretching forths...," and yet you readily conclude that macro evolution is true and say it's not incompatible with the Bible!

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.

Well I'd like you to show me where you got that message from the Bible! Cite the verse(s).

Until you do, don't be criticizing how I read my Bible!

Edited September 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

The beginning of life hasn't been empirically verified yet.

Therefore, it's plain assumption! Like I said.

Edited September 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Interesting that somehow means talking about whether or not certain passages of the Bible describe something found through science turns into a discussion on the origin of the Universe,

Why couldn't it be? Why shouldn't it be?

If science was given to us by God, it can be used by God in any way and any how He wants to.

Perhaps that's the very purpose of science! It is to GLORIFY GOD! I don't know why you have such a problem with that!

You know what....this is turning into an idle prattle over nothing with you. So unless you've got anything sensible to contribute....I'll just ignore for now. Anyway I've already given my point so many times.

UNTIL YOU GIVE ME THE CITES to support your silly opinion(s) as demanded.

1. Cite for the Bible passage that supports your claim, Macro-evolution is not incompatible with the Bible.

2. Cite for the various translations of the word stretches in various languages (perhaps French- since you mentioned it, to make it easier for you)

Edited September 23, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Then, why do you have a prolem accepting that it's been given for a purpose - and that it can be used by God in any way or any how He wants to?

You only think you know. Thinking you know, is part of your confusion!

Since I only think I know, then you tell why I have a problem I don't have.

I wasn't asking you about Elvis. Don't compare God to Elvis.

You think I was comparing God to Elvis? And I am the one who is confused?

[CANADIEN]

You seem to place science as equal to God in stature.

Both, separately, have their own specific domain?

That God wouldn't dare meddle with science.....as science wouldn't even dream about messing with the supernatural?

In this instance, replace God with faith, and you will (for once) get relatively close with what I think.

Faith is knowledge of God and who He is. Science is the discovery of how His creation works.

[CANADIEN]

You keep saying other translations don't have the same meaning. How would you know? You don't even understand your own ENGLISH Bible....and here you are making conclusions about the interpretations of others!

OK now, how long have I been on MapleLeafweb? On and off, five six years? Many on my postings here have been on language rights issues. And you don't know yet? Even the way I write the name I chose to use here isn't a clue?

Rolling of drums...

My first language is...

Albanian Banjar Cantonese Dogrib German Hiligaynon Inuktitut Jalaltec Kannada Lunda Manx Nyoro Ojibwe Punjabi Quechua Ruthenian Sidamo Tatar Udite Vietnamese Walloon Xhoxa Yoma Zapotec English

FRENCH

Which makes it even more ironic, BTW, that I understand some aspects of the English language (such as the difference between "stretch" and "stretch out") better than you.

I gave you the Hebrew word, natah, for "stretch," and also provided the explanation how it differs.

And right there, your argument met a stumbling block - the fact, that the stechtching meant in the word natah is the stretching out of a hand. YOU wrote it, so it must be right. The stretching out of a hand is not the type of stretching evoked when scientists talk about the Universe expending.

Edited September 23, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Which is God's revelation to us - in the present age - that, HE IS GOD! HE CREATED EVERYTHING!

The Bible is showing us Who the Creator is by His intimate knowledge of His creation! Therefore, this deals with ORIGIN!

Indeed, God is telling us through the Bible that He is the Creator. I never said otherwise, despite your best attempts at confusing yourself otherwise.

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.

You talk of confusion. You are the one who is confused about what I say. And it is not just because I am not the best at explaining myself.

Since He knows everything - including the future - perhaps this is His way of talking to the present time - knowing that at this time, there will be the evolutionists who'll try to hoodwink us with their so-called origin theories!

They must have hoodwinked you all right, since the theory of evolution is not about the origins of life... it is about the evolution of life after it first appeared.

Btw, news to you. Dre was responding to my post. So I can tell her what my post was all about.

Mind your own business. You're already confused with your own as it is to start worrying about others.

And now, you decide what I can and cannot talk about. Oh surprise.

[CANADIEN]

Your disagreement is not with my reading of the Bible. Your disagreement is with the message!

Thank you for reminding me, as usual, that I don't know what I disagree with.

So you keep saying you've got faith. Having faith should reflect in your actions and words.....your reasonings and rationale.

News to you. Having faith and having it reflected in one's actions and words is not the same as interpreting things the way YOU do.

That the word "stretches...." appeared 11 times and in the right context is still unacceptable to you. You try all these pathetic rebutts why, and clearly skating around the the logic of the point.

You get in such a knot over the "stretching outs..." and the "stretching forths...,"

What can I say... The verbs "to stretch", "to stretch out" and "to stretch forth" are not the same in YOUR language (whhich I seem to understand better than you do). skate as much as you want around it, the Oxford Dictionary will not change to acommodate you.

and yet you readily conclude that macro evolution is true and say it's not incompatible with the Bible!

Actually, what I said it is not incompatible with Creation.

On this, since you like quotes so much. Here's one from a person who likely knows the Bible more than you or I:

I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God.

Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

Until you do, don't be criticizing how I read my Bible!

I decide what I criticize and don't criticize, thank you very much.

Edited September 23, 2012 by CANADIEN

[cybercoma]

Therefore, it's plain assumption! Like I said.

There is no assumption about the beginning of life. There are hypotheses that scientists are working on verifying empirically. If God started life, then verify your hypothesis and present your discovery to an academic journal or scientific conference.

[CANADIEN]

Why couldn't it be?

I never said it couldn't be. God can do whatever He wants. He IS, after all. I said it isn't. Which is different. God could have made the Earth to be a cube. He hasn't.

Why shouldn't it be?

God is the sole Judge of what He should do or not do, of what He should say or not say.

If science was given to us by God, it can be used by God in any way and any how He wants to.

Perhaps that's the very purpose of science! It is to GLORIFY GOD! I don't know why you have such a problem with that!

Since I have stated that science is part of the intellectual gifts God give to us, and He can do whatever He wants, it is clear that the so called problem I have is only in YOUR mind. YOU get confused because I will not extend my understanding of the relationship between God, sicence and us to conclude that the Bible contains scientifically accurate descriptions of the way the Universe is expending.

You know what....this is turning into an idle prattle over nothing with you.

What God tells us about Him and His Creation in the Bible is not nothing.

So unless you've got anything sensible to contribute...

I tried that,but then sensbile equals approved by betsy.

I'll just ignore for now.

You won't, but that's OK with me.

Anyway I've already given my point so many times.

And you have given me MY points so many times, after I have said something different.

UNTIL YOU GIVE ME THE CITES to support your silly opinion(s) as demanded.

You demand? Who do you think you are?

1. Cite for the Bible passage that supports your claim, Macro-evolution is not incompatible with the Bible.

This is not what I claim. Your confusion about it, your problem.

2. Cite for the various translations of the word stretches in various languages (perhaps French- since you mentioned it, to make it easier for you)

I will be happy to provide the passages of the Bible de Jérusalem (hope you don't mind that I pray using a Catholic Bible... just asking), and the definition of the verbs from the Robert (one of the two main French-language dictionaries). Provided that you understand French enough to follow. Considering your problems with English verbs, you'll forgive me if I am my doubts.

Edited September 23, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

There is no assumption about the beginning of life. There are hypotheses that scientists are working on verifying empirically. If God started life, then verify your hypothesis and present your discovery to an academic journal or scientific conference.

The existence of God, and the fact He created the Universe and life, are not provable by scientific methods. This doesn't disprove (or prove) that He does not exist and that He did not create.

There is a reality beyond what can be found and measured through science. By this, I don't mean the "God is the the gaps" stuff. I mean faith and science are two forms of knowledge, which are not incompatible.

[cybercoma]

If God is unprovable, then how do you know God exists? If God has no affect on the natural world, then all of the talk about God punishing us for transgressions and the myriad other ways the faithful claim He works in the world are for naught. Why? Because if He affects the natural world, then it is certainly measurable. If He doesn't affect the natural world, then the only consequence of our actions is some sort of afterlife.

[CANADIEN]

If God is unprovable, then how do you know God exists?

Faith. And perhaps I should clarify what I mean... God is unprovable through science.

If God has no affect on the natural world, then all of the talk about God punishing us for transgressions and the myriad other ways the faithful claim He works in the world are for naught. Why? Because if He affects the natural world, then it is certainly measurable. If He doesn't affect the natural world, then the only consequence of our actions is some sort of afterlife.

Since what is beyond the measurable is not measurable, how could one measure how it affects the natural world? How can one measure how love, hatred, contempt, other human emotions that are not measurable, yet exist, affect the natural world? It cannot be measured. Doesn't mean the natural word is not affected.

Noone can measure hatred, for example, and thus no one can measure its effect. But it affects us all right. Same with God. Not that I see wars, for example, as "punishment" from God. But wars, are the result of choices we made that are contrary to what God wants from us.

Now, I don't expect this will make sense to you. Mostly because, quite frankly, I am no theologian, and have no claim to be one. I am sure there are people who can explain what I said far better than I do.

[Guest Manny]

Now, I don't expect this will make sense to you. Mostly because, quite frankly, I am no theologian, and have no claim to be one. I am sure there are people who can explain what I said far better than I do.

I mean, that's a reasonable attitude to say you have faith and it is yours, personally, and you don't expect others to understand. And you don't need them to. I think that any time we enter into the realm of metaphysics and say anything at all, we risk our ideas being shot down by literalists and people who tend to predominantly use their logical hemisphere. It's all too easy to shoot holes into someones metaphysical argument.

The question is why not have the same tolerance for Betsy and her views then, if we can admit that any such statements are inherently very difficult to convey with words in a forum. And each of us comes at it from our own world view, with our own unique history. Each of us evolves in our own thinking over time as well, transiting from simple, child-like allegory to increasingly complex ideas, some even in contradiction with what we believed before. Because we learn about things like CONTEXT, and human needs, that go beyond simply "knowing" things based on pure reason.

[bleeding heart]

I mean, that's a reasonable attitude to say you have faith and it is yours, personally, and you don't expect others to understand. And you don't need them to. I think that any time we enter into the realm of metaphysics and say anything at all, we risk our ideas being shot down by literalists and people who tend to predominantly use their logical hemisphere. It's all too easy to shoot holes into someones metaphysical argument.

The question is why not have the same tolerance for Betsy and her views then, if we can admit that any such statements are inherently very difficult to convey with words in a forum. And each of us comes at it from our own world view, with our own unique history. Each of us evolves in our own thinking over time as well, transiting from simple, child-like allegory to increasingly complex ideas, some even in contradiction with what we believed before. Because we learn about things like CONTEXT, and human needs, that go beyond simply "knowing" things based on pure reason.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Edited September 23, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

Faith. And perhaps I should clarify what I mean... God is unprovable through science.

Since what is beyond the measurable is not measurable, how could one measure how it affects the natural world? How can one measure how love, hatred, contempt, other human emotions that are not measurable, yet exist, affect the natural world? It cannot be measured. Doesn't mean the natural word is not affected.

Noone can measure hatred, for example, and thus no one can measure its effect. But it affects us all right. Same with God. Not that I see wars, for example, as "punishment" from God. But wars, are the result of choices we made that are contrary to what God wants from us.

Now, I don't expect this will make sense to you. Mostly because, quite frankly, I am no theologian, and have no claim to be one. I am sure there are people who can explain what I said far better than I do.

I'm not going to force you to justify your faith. At the end of the day faith is exactly this: it's real because I believe it's real.

For the record, things like hatred can be measured in a number of different ways both sociologically and psychologically. It can even be quantified through surveys and questionnaires.

I completely understand what you believe. It makes sense to me. I just don't believe the same things.

[CANADIEN]

I'm not going to force you to justify your faith. At the end of the day faith is exactly this: it's real because I believe it's real.

For the record, things like hatred can be measured in a number of different ways both sociologically and psychologically. It can even be quantified through surveys and questionnaires.

I completely understand what you believe. It makes sense to me. I just don't believe the same things.

Don't worry. I was not under the impression I was ask to justify my faith.

[CANADIEN]

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."

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.

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.

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.

As for as I concerned, betsy is no less, or more, of a Christian because of the way she interprets the Bible. And she is perfectly free to interpret it anyway it suits her. I happen to think her interpretation is wrong, and I haven't read anything that would convince me otherwise.

Now, I won't claim I'm the best at putting my opinions in words. But I believe I am not bad to the point one persn, ONE person, constantly misinterpret and misrepresent my opinions.

[betsy]

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.

You talk of confusion. You are the one who is confused about what I say. And it is not just because I am not the best at explaining myself.

No I'm not confused about you. Just look at your above statement, "What I have said all along is that God's message in the Bible is not about how the Universe works."

And didn't I say that yes, the Bible is not about HOW the universe works.....but it is about God telling us HE IS CREATOR OF EVERYTHING, and that HE IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD!

You posted this in reply to Squid.

But the Bible is true. It IS the word of God. What it is not is a manual on how God created the Universe or the mechanics of it.

The message is "I am God and I created the Universe". It is not "I am God, this is how the Universe works and don't worry if you don't get it, I'll make sure your descendants a few hundreds generations from now do."

betsy:

Yes, it's not a manual HOW He created the universe. The Bible, however, apparently gives descriptions of the universe (depending on what God wants and when He wants to reveal to the present and to the future generations) - as discovered and supported by science.

And since it'll be really admitting to gross ignorance of the Bible if you say God has not given any descriptions of the universe...I'd be really falling off my chair if you even suggest that my above statement is not a fact!

So therefore, we agree. I'll ask again what Manny asked you: What in the world are you bitchin' about?

They must have hoodwinked you all right, since the theory of evolution is not about the origins of life... it is about the evolution of life after it first appeared.

It's gotta be, as it first appeared!

You're saying, "after it first appeared since nobody has anything at all how it first appeared! You've got diddly squat!

That's what we're on about - everything has to start somewhere, doesn't it?

Or have you swallowed that baloney docu at Discovery where they tried to explain how we supposed to have "evolved" - and bingo, they didn't explain where those thingy in the water (whatever they're supposed to be) came from! They're just suddenly there- swimming around like little poliwags!

They've hit a snag, didn't they? Decided to fast forwarded it a bit knowing the hoodwinked viewers lapping this all up wouldn't notice the hocus-pocus - skipping the best and most important detail.

And I guess they know their evolutionist viewers wouldn't be asking any questions!

Where did it all start? How?

And now, you decide what I can and cannot talk about. Oh surprise.

It's okay for you to talk about that....since your talk boosted by confirmation - you don't know what you're talking about!

Edited September 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I will be happy to provide the passages of the Bible de Jérusalem (hope you don't mind that I pray using a Catholic Bible... just asking), and the definition of the verbs from the Robert (one of the two main French-language dictionaries). Provided that you understand French enough to follow. Considering your problems with English verbs, you'll forgive me if I am my doubts.

Let me worry about the French - just give it.

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

Edited September 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Thank you for reminding me, as usual, that I don't know what I disagree with.

News to you. Having faith and having it reflected in one's actions and words is not the same as interpreting things the way YOU do.

What can I say... The verbs "to stretch", "to stretch out" and "to stretch forth" are not the same in YOUR language (whhich I seem to understand better than you do). skate as much as you want around it, the Oxford Dictionary will not change to acommodate you.

Actually, what I said it is not incompatible with Creation.

On this, since you like quotes so much. Here's one from a person who likely knows the Bible more than you or I:

Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

I decide what I criticize and don't criticize, thank you very much.

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.

I've given you specific verses.....not somebody else's opinion. I demand you do the same

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."

Edited September 24, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Show me a message in the Bible that says that.

Asking... err I mean demanding that I prove a negative...

No I'm not confused about you. Just look at your above statement, "What I have said all along is that God's message in the Bible is not about how the Universe works."

And didn't I say that yes, the Bible is not about HOW the universe works.....but it is about God telling us HE IS CREATOR OF EVERYTHING, and that HE IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD!

Nice try... every time you keep arguing "those passages say that God stretch the Univers and that's what scientists say is happening", it is about how the Universe works. The expending nature of the Universe is part of how God make it work.

Anyway, whether or not those infamous passages you misread are a description of the Universe or a description of how the Universe works, the fact remains that they are not scientifically accurate, nor, in my opinion, were they meant to be.

It's gotta be, as it first appeared!

You're saying, "after it first appeared since nobody has anything at all how it first appeared! You've got diddly squat!

That's what we're on about - everything has to start somewhere, doesn't it?

Or have you swallowed that baloney docu at Discovery where they tried to explain how we supposed to have "evolved" - and bingo, they didn't explain where those thingy in the water (whatever they're supposed to be) came from! They're just suddenly there- swimming around like little poliwags!

They've hit a snag, didn't they? Decided to fast forwarded it a bit knowing the hoodwinked viewers lapping this all up wouldn't notice the hocus-pocus - skipping the best and most important detail.

And I guess they know their evolutionist viewers wouldn't be asking any questions!

Where did it all start? How?

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

Interesting isn't it that for someone who keep saying that science comes from God, you keep rejecting science that doesn't fit your reading of the Bible. And that's what macro-evolution is, a confirmed, solid scientific theory, in other words SCIENCE.

If you have another scientific model that explains the changing of life from from the moment God created it to today, feel free to explain it. Sorry, but repeating somehing any Christian knows (God created life) and harping on the fact macro-evolution doesn't discuss something that it is not about (how the first life appeared) won't cut it.

Edited September 24, 2012 by CANADIEN