End of the world This Saturday

Quote:

I bet the dinosaurs all died out in the velocirapture.

Man ... people keep making Rapture jokes like there's no tomorrow.

Wow I haven't listened to that song in ages, talk about a blast from the past.

As for the "supposed" end of the world earlier I believed it as much as I did since the last time I heard the world was going to end. I do wonder somewhat how many people actually bought into this guess?

Quote:

Quote:

I bet the dinosaurs all died out in the velocirapture.

Man ... people keep making Rapture jokes like there's no tomorrow.

Looks like I survived day one of the "rapture season", which lasts from May 21 to Oct 21, 2011.

11...May
30..June
31...July
31...Aug
30...Sept
21...Oct
___
154 total days
-1 day =

ONLY 153 DAYS TO GO

Quote:

http://youtu.be/yK42DkmsqzE

Not bad! Reminds me of Edguy.

Quote:

Just curious, how can you guys tell the difference between someone who has studied the Bible all his life and is absolutely correct and the other person who has studied the Bible all his life and is just nuts?

Personally, I can't tell the difference.

Glad you liked it. Here's my favorite song by the same band as well as some other bands I like if you're interested. I like hard rock, Metal ( the older style of metal), Ska, as well as Gospel, and many other types of music. These songs would be metal, hard rock, and I threw some ska in.

http://youtu.be/B24j9fnkxo4- Power metal, progressive. Give this one some time. It starts off a little slowly, but it absolutely rips once it gets going. It builds and builds.

http://youtu.be/ZGxmxJCmZ_Y metal. BTW, when Deliverance uses phrases like "Weapons of our Warfare" they are referring to spiritual warfar, spiritual enemies, and spiritual weapons. The battle is not against flesh and blood...

http://youtu.be/LM7uD8REy8c- metal similar to black metal or early Slayer, without the dark message.

http://youtu.be/yoXA_hBHXOY- Ska- Excellent live band!

I was an Iron Maiden, Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, etc fan in the 80s. I became a believer in 1988. I still like metal, but the metal I like now has a different message.

Quote:

Quote:

Just curious, how can you guys tell the difference between someone who has studied the Bible all his life and is absolutely correct and the other person who has studied the Bible all his life and is just nuts?

Personally, I can't tell the difference.

The one who is correct says the same things Jesus said. The ones who are nuts are the ones who twist and pervert what the Bible says.

Of course the world thinks the teachings of Christ are foolish. I mean who wants to love their enemies, or go the extra mile for someone, or forgive those who have wronged you, or treat other people how you would like to be treated, or be faithful in your marriage, or honor your father and mother, or be honest in your business dealings, or seek something higher than material things...

I'm nuts to believe this stuff...

i am not bashing Christianity in any way, but i like jokes

I'm reasonably certain that the "end of the world" guy, as well as most Atheists, Agnostics, and pretty much just about everybody agrees with the basic concepts put forth. There reasons would all be different.

Just want to give one example I heard a while back of how this book is interpreted.

We all know the "turn the other cheek" story. It is taken as a parable of non-violence. Now, back in ancient times, if you were facing a person, and you were right-handed, like most people, you would strike a slave or lower-caste person with the back of your hand, striking them upon the right cheek. There is a modern term for this "slap" which carries some of the same meaning still today.

What is so dramatically misunderstood today is that for a Roman, for instance, to strike a slave with a closed fist upon the left cheek would be incredibly shameful for the Roman. Status was all-important, to lower yourself to that level just was not done. Somewhat similar to peeing on your grandmother in front of a large crowd. Sorry for the graphic there but IMO it was necessary.

For a slave to offer that left cheek would be claiming an equal status, in effect saying "hit me like a man". There is more. A back-handed lower-caste person was absolutely unable to retaliate in any way, this would mean a very speedy and likely painful death. However, someone struck as an equal, someone hit with a closed fist, on that left cheek, claiming equal status inherently also meant that retaliation was likely to occur.

Offering that left cheek was far from an expression of non-violence or altruistic love. It was a form of direct assault, a claim of equality coupled with the threat of a return strike. Regardless of how the speaker actually meant these words, which would be simply guessing, there is no doubt whatsoever how a Roman citizen would have perceived this action.

no offense taken.

Quote:

I'm reasonably certain that the "end of the world" guy, as well as most Atheists, Agnostics, and pretty much just about everybody agrees with the basic concepts put forth. There reasons would all be different.

Just want to give one example I heard a while back of how this book is interpreted.

We all know the "turn the other cheek" story. It is taken as a parable of non-violence. Now, back in ancient times, if you were facing a person, and you were right-handed, like most people, you would strike a slave or lower-caste person with the back of your hand, striking them upon the right cheek. There is a modern term for this "slap" which carries some of the same meaning still today.

What is so dramatically misunderstood today is that for a Roman, for instance, to strike a slave with a closed fist upon the left cheek would be incredibly shameful for the Roman. Status was all-important, to lower yourself to that level just was not done. Somewhat similar to peeing on your grandmother in front of a large crowd. Sorry for the graphic there but IMO it was necessary.

For a slave to offer that left cheek would be claiming an equal status, in effect saying "hit me like a man". There is more. A back-handed lower-caste person was absolutely unable to retaliate in any way, this would mean a very speedy and likely painful death. However, someone struck as an equal, someone hit with a closed fist, on that left cheek, claiming equal status inherently also meant that retaliation was likely to occur.

Offering that left cheek was far from an expression of non-violence or altruistic love. It was a form of direct assault, a claim of equality coupled with the threat of a return strike. Regardless of how the speaker actually meant these words, which would be simply guessing, there is no doubt whatsoever how a Roman citizen would have perceived this action.

Interesting post. The only thing is that there is nothing in the context of Jesus' teaching that indicated He was describing a situation between a slave and his master. Contextually, Jesus is showing an alternative to "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" precept. Now seeing that "eye for an eye" is from the Old Testament, does this mean that Jesus is contradicting the Old Testament? No, He was demonstrating their misinterpretation of the Old Testament. They were using "eye for an eye" for personal vengeance, when in the Old Testament "eye for an eye" was part of judicial law.

Also, Jesus is showing that the Old Testament was not God's final word, but preparatory. He said, "I did not come to destroy the Law but to fullfill. The Royal Law of Christ is even higher than the Old Testament Law.

If you read Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus says several times, "you have heard that it has been said...but I say unto you...

It has been said Do not murder...but I say to you "dont even hate"
It has been said Do not commit adultery, but I say dont even lust after another mans wife.
It has been said, "eye for an eye", I say "turn the other cheek"

In these passages, Jesus is not contradicting the Old Testament, but is basically raising the bar that was set by the Old Testament to a higher level. Not that the Old Testament was wrong, but because it was incomplete and preparatory, ( preparing us for Christ). The books of Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, to name a few clearly teach this, for anyone who wants to take the time to read them.

So the "turn the other cheek" exhortation is made in contrast to the "eye for an eye" exhortation.

"Eye for an eye" is for bearing false witness. It is not direct retribution for a wrong. If you bear false witness for a crime and the punishment is loss of an eye, you will lose an eye.

Quote:

Not that the Old Testament was wrong

So it was right, until Christ came?

All those stoning deaths and the offenses that led to them weren't wrong?

Poor attempt at dodging the issue.

Jews were either slaves or lower-class, almost exclusively,

I nowhere mentioned a slave and his master, but specifically a lower-caste person, as virtually all Jews were, and an upper-class person, as almost anyone else would be. Certainly not every encounter would contain these two elements, however it should be abundantly clear that a significant number, even a majority, WOULD in fact contain such a mixture of people. Even with a confrontation among equals, the same meaning remains.

Specifically the contact to the right side of the face as the initial contact cannot be so blithely ignored. With the vast majority of the population being right-handed, unless the person was standing Behind you, the blow to the right side of the face would be a backhand strike from the right hand. This is very specifically an absolute indicator of the relative social status of the two individuals involved, even if they were equal, a statement is being made. Striking someone this way is stating "you are beneath me." Inviting them to strike the Left cheek is a very clear statement that "I am your equal, and I am free to hit you back".

There you go, time to tap-dance a little faster.

From this point forward, I will respond with scripture only.

Leviticus 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done , so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

quote]

Quote:

Not that the Old Testament was wrong

So it was right, until Christ came?

All those stoning deaths and the offenses that led to them weren't wrong?

Question 1. Galatians 3:19 Well then, why was the law given? It was given to show people how guilty they are. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of the child to whom God's promise was made. And there is this further difference. God gave his laws to angels to give to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people. 20 Now a mediator is needed if two people enter into an agreement, but God acted on his own when he made his promise to Abraham. 21 Well then, is there a conflict between God's law and God's promises? Absolutely not! If the law could have given us new life, we could have been made right with God by obeying it. 22 But the Scriptures have declared that we are all prisoners of sin, so the only way to receive God's promise is to believe in Jesus Christ. 23 Until faith in Christ was shown to us as the way of becoming right with God, we were guarded by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until we could put our faith in the coming Savior. 24 Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian and teacher to lead us until Christ came. So now, through faith in Christ, we are made right with God. 25 But now that faith in Christ has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian

Question 2. Romans 3:23-For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.

Ezekiel 18: For all people are mine to judge -- both parents and children alike. And this is my rule: The person who sins will be the one who dies.

Romans 5:8 But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.

Quote:

Poor attempt at dodging the issue.

Jews were either slaves or lower-class, almost exclusively,

I nowhere mentioned a slave and his master, but specifically a lower-caste person, as virtually all Jews were, and an upper-class person, as almost anyone else would be. Certainly not every encounter would contain these two elements, however it should be abundantly clear that a significant number, even a majority, WOULD in fact contain such a mixture of people. Even with a confrontation among equals, the same meaning remains.

Specifically the contact to the right side of the face as the initial contact cannot be so blithely ignored. With the vast majority of the population being right-handed, unless the person was standing Behind you, the blow to the right side of the face would be a backhand strike from the right hand. This is very specifically an absolute indicator of the relative social status of the two individuals involved, even if they were equal, a statement is being made. Striking someone this way is stating "you are beneath me." Inviting them to strike the Left cheek is a very clear statement that "I am your equal, and I am free to hit you back".

There you go, time to tap-dance a little faster.

I know I said that I would only answer with scripture, but I must make an exception here, because you need to explain your position. Please back up the following statements with either a Biblical or historical source, then I will be glad to tap dance with you further.

"Jews were either slaves or lower-class, almost exclusively",

"a lower-caste person, as virtually all Jews were, and an upper-class person, as almost anyone else would be".

In what way were Jews lower class and a lower caste then almost everyone else?

Please provide reliable sources to demonstrate your point.

I could do that and open up other avenues of wiggle room for you, but I'm not going to. It is not relevant.

The statement in the book is clear, the physics are inescapable. To strike a person facing you upon the right cheek is a back-handed blow. To offer the left is a direct challenge to social status.

The main point here is that the interpretation most often placed upon this passage ignores social standards of the time. This is based upon people seeing that which they want to see. Such as how you don't mention the complete gibberish which accompanies almost every quote you give.

The book is almost 2,000 years old, language changes so much in that period of time that to take a literal translation of anything that old and say with confidence "this is what it means" is just silly. General ideas, sure, but specifics, hell no.

The "turn the other cheek" story is just one example, but one of my favorites. Once you give some thought to the status and caste system in place in those days, it is not possible to ignore the specifics of the statement. Now it is possible that in 2,000 years the meaning of the words for "right" and "left" has reversed. However, if that has happened, then every single word in every single translation needs to be re-examined, with the knowledge that absolute factual information is just not available. So, you are left with somebody's best guess, which is a heck of a thing to base a life philosophy on.

No offense to you but I just don't believe the whole "Turn the other Cheek" story you told. You mean to tell me a slave/low class person when confronted by a Roman just needed to turn his cheek and he would get one over on the Roman??? Sorry, but the Roman would have pulled a sword and stabbed the man for trying to insult him.

History being a hobby of mine and the Romans a great interest as well I've never heard of Romans always backhanding a slave and only using their right hand, and if they punched a slave he would mark him as his equal. I can promise you many slaves were punched and punched often and none of them were granted any raise in class status.

Quote:

Poor attempt at dodging the issue.

Jews were either slaves or lower-class, almost exclusively,

I nowhere mentioned a slave and his master, but specifically a lower-caste person, as virtually all Jews were, and an upper-class person, as almost anyone else would be. Certainly not every encounter would contain these two elements, however it should be abundantly clear that a significant number, even a majority, WOULD in fact contain such a mixture of people. Even with a confrontation among equals, the same meaning remains.

Specifically the contact to the right side of the face as the initial contact cannot be so blithely ignored. With the vast majority of the population being right-handed, unless the person was standing Behind you, the blow to the right side of the face would be a backhand strike from the right hand. This is very specifically an absolute indicator of the relative social status of the two individuals involved, even if they were equal, a statement is being made. Striking someone this way is stating "you are beneath me." Inviting them to strike the Left cheek is a very clear statement that "I am your equal, and I am free to hit you back".

There you go, time to tap-dance a little faster.

I did not dodge the issue, I provided the context of the verse that you tried to expound. Basically what you have done is remove the verse from its immediete context and the context of the book of Matthew, set it off by itself, and arrived at a novel interpretation. You should read the passage in context before you interpret it.

This is why people come up with so many wrong interpretations of the Bible, they take it out of context! The problem is not that the Bible is hard to understand or nonsensical, it's because people take it out of context.

When Jesus said to turn the other cheek it was during one of His sermons, one of the greatest sermons ever preached. The immediete context of the phrase in question is Matthew 5:17-48. I will not post the whole passage, you can look it up yourself, and I summarized it earlier, but here is the beginning and the end of that passage. I believe the beginning shows its subject matter and the end shows its application. Please pay specific attention to the last line in the first section, and the last three lines of the second section.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. Matthew 5:43-48- 43

What Jesus is saying is that just as God loves those who hate Him, patiently endures those who mock His name and ridicule Him, blesses those who reject Him (with rain and harvest), and goes the extra mile for us, we as followers of God, should love those that hate us, be patient with those who mistreat us, and give to those in need even though they make themselves our enemies.

How many times was Jesus slapped and turned the other cheek on the way to the cross?

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/23/11 02:03 PM

Quote:

No offense to you but I just don't believe the whole "Turn the other Cheek" story you told. You mean to tell me a slave/low class person when confronted by a Roman just needed to turn his cheek and he would get one over on the Roman??? Sorry, but the Roman would have pulled a sword and stabbed the man for trying to insult him.

History being a hobby of mine and the Romans a great interest as well I've never heard of Romans always backhanding a slave and only using their right hand, and if they punched a slave he would mark him as his equal. I can promise you many slaves were punched and punched often and none of them were granted any raise in class status.

Excellent post. I also think he misunderstands or misrepresents the social status of the Jews in Jesus day. The apostle Paul for one was a priviledged Roman citizen, as were many other Jews. Many were wealthy landowners and respected leaders. To say they were mostly or all slaves is ludicrous.

It is accurate to say that they were citizens of an occupied country who were often mistreated by their occupiers, but it wasnt like they were slaves as in Egypt during the days of Moses.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/23/11 03:30 PM

Firstly, you are missing the concept that no, the slave simply would not do that, turn the other cheek, as to "get one over" on a Roman would mean almost certain death.

That the Roman would take this as a tremendous insult was EXACTLY my point.

Did not say they always used their right hand, please read more carefully. I said that most people are right-handed. To use the right hand and land a blow on the right cheek of a person facing you requires a back-hand blow. The meaning of such a blow is still clear today.

Sure there are left-handed people, and also midgets who would hit you in the knee. We are dealing with some generalities, here.

Start with this single concept, someone who is facing you and has struck your right cheek, has almost certainly "b-slapped" you. Today, 2,000 years ago, tomorrow, this is by far the most likely thing to have happened. This is less an attack or act of violence than a mark of disrespect.

An upper-class Roman would not beat a slave as you describe, he would have one of their servants do it. They would not "get their hands dirty", with such a thing. As a general rule.

Slave, lower-class, these differ only slightly, it is a graduated scale. "knowing your place" was a very important concept in those days.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/23/11 03:45 PM

Did not say they were all slaves, please read more carefully, not everything is total mush that you can interpret as you wish.

Citizens of an occupied country, to Roman citizens, were Automatically of lower caste or status.

You have to take into account that these were people who were totally free to have their wives or their own children executed, pretty much just because they felt like it. "Mistreatment" is just a bit misleading.

Just start with the B-slap concept and extrapolate from there. As for the passages you posted, I see little to no connection to the passage in question, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that further illuminates the specific aspects being debated.

AT A MINIMUM - is the scenario I have given a Possibly valid interpretation of what was being said? Can you PROVE that it is wrong? If it IS correct, is it not RADICALLY different from the generally accepted meaning? Is it not possible, even likely, that other such dramatic differences in original meaning and current interpretation exist? Does it say to not Kill, or not Murder? Who exactly constitutes Your Neighbors? If you can answer those, who told you that and how the hell do they know?

BTW, the original interpretation I have given here was not my invention, heard this on radio or TV a few years ago. Don't remember his name or general purpose, I think he wrote a book or something.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/23/11 04:40 PM

Quote:

Did not say they were all slaves, please read more carefully, not everything is total mush that you can interpret as you wish.

Citizens of an occupied country, to Roman citizens, were Automatically of lower caste or status.

You have to take into account that these were people who were totally free to have their wives or their own children executed, pretty much just because they felt like it. "Mistreatment" is just a bit misleading.

Just start with the B-slap concept and extrapolate from there. As for the passages you posted, I see little to no connection to the passage in question, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that further illuminates the specific aspects being debated.

AT A MINIMUM - is the scenario I have given a Possibly valid interpretation of what was being said? Can you PROVE that it is wrong? If it IS correct, is it not RADICALLY different from the generally accepted meaning? Is it not possible, even likely, that other such dramatic differences in original meaning and current interpretation exist? Does it say to not Kill, or not Murder? Who exactly constitutes Your Neighbors? If you can answer those, who told you that and how the hell do they know?

BTW, the original interpretation I have given here was not my invention, heard this on radio or TV a few years ago. Don't remember his name or general purpose, I think he wrote a book or something.

Laying aside the slave/lower caste debate momentarily, lets look at the heart of the question.

The verses that you say have no connection to the passage in question are actually its immediete context. You do realize that immediete context means what is said immedietely before and after , dont you? Please refer to the quote and link below, paying special attention to the underlined portion.

To quote out of context is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning. The context in which a passage occurs always contributes to its meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution . For this reason, the quoter must always be careful to quote enough of the context not to misrepresent the meaning of the quote.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html

Notice the context, ( or surrounding verses in the Bible's case), always contributes to a passages meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution. This is Hermeneutics,( Bible interpretation), 101. In fact it is the most elementary principle. Context is also determined by who is speaking, who he is speaking to, when it is taking place, where it is taking place, and events that surround the passage to name a few.

As to the question "is this interpretation valid", I am not saying that what you are stating is an impossibility, merely that it doesnt fit the context of the Sermon on the Mount, in which the passage in question is located. I don't feel the need to disprove your interpretation. If that's the way you interpret the passage, feel free. I just respectfully doubt your conclusion, ( I'm not even disagreeing, I am just skeptical), not because what you are saying is impossible, but because the context of the passage indicates otherwise.

Also, just because someone said it on the radio, doesnt make it so. People say all kinds of things on the radio, take Harold Camping for instance, ( remember him?) He made a lot of claims that could not be documented. If I were you I would look for documentation. Even if you find it, it still doesnt change the meaning of Jesus" words, just how Romans would interpret them.By the way, was Jesus speaking to Jews or Romans? Did His listeners interpret His words literally or figuratively? For example, when Jesus said, If your right hand offends you, cut it off. Should we take that literally? The context of a passage also tells us when it should be interpreted literally or figuratively.

I hold that what Jesus meant by turn the other cheek was if someone mistreats you or insults you, do not retaliate. That explaination fits perfectly within the context of the passage.

I am not belittling your interpretation and I do appreciate the information you shared. In fact, I will be doing a little research to see if the phrase "turn the other cheek" carried that nuance of meaning. I am just sharing my view with you. There's no need for us to argue, we are just exchanging ideas. I just wanted to say that to let you know I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just sharing another perspective.

As far as meanings of the word murder or kill, you can refer to the original Hebrew Text and see what Hebrew word was used. The word is "ratsach" and it means murder. Also, you can interpret this word in light of its larger context, ( the books of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy ) As for what does "neighbor" mean, Jesus answered that for us in the parable of the good Samaritan.

Lastly, please explain this statement...

"Such as how you don't mention the complete gibberish which accompanies almost every quote you give."

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/23/11 08:59 PM

I am familiar with context, although I would contend that it is not ALWAYS necessary. In terms of what you quoted as the context for the statement, I completely and totally fail to see one's connection to the other.

Much of Bible verse is, to me, Gibberish, babble, non-sensical. When "explanations" are offered such as the meaning of "neighbor" is given several hundred years AFTER the commandments are delivered, this makes no sense to me. "Neighbor", at the time given for the writing, meant something very different long, long ago, for one thing a neighbor was almost certainly family, thinking in terms of clans a neighbor was by definition "family". The word does not mean that today.

"Kill" and "murder" are two completely different things, yet they are used nearly interchangeably in the commandments. Who is it that decides which word should be used? How certain can we be on the meaning of a word used 2,000 years ago? At that time, the meanings could very well be substantially different than what we understand them to be today.

For example, how many women have you "known"? Did Jesus know Mary Magdalene? Speaking today, yes, he did, but speaking 2,000 years ago, well, he may or may not.

Which reminds me of something completely different from another source, about Jesus being married, which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. This author stated that it is nowhere mentioned that he had a third eye in the center of his forehead, either, but we can assume that he did not because if he did, this would be so unusual that it would be commented upon. He used the same case to argue that a Rabbi who was NOT married would be so unusual that someone would have said something about it.

IMO some unknown dude on the radio who wrote a book for some reason is just as much an absolute authority on the words, actions, and meanings of God as anyone else.

When you speak of "interpreting" meaning, in context, what this says to me is that you are Guessing. We can call it an Educated Guess, but it is still Guessing. Interpretations of various passages have changed over the years. You all can't agree on what, exactly, the "rapture" is, how it happens, and how long after that the earth is destroyed.

For a Rulebook on how life is to be lived, the Bible is awfully vague.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/23/11 09:56 PM

You believe the Bible is impossible to understand with certainty, I believe that the Bible can be understood by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that God is able to superintend His Word, so that people in all generations will understand it.

Obviously you don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God. If I may ask, are you an atheist, an agnostic, a non-Biblical theist, or a liberal Christian. Whichever you may be, it will effect how you understand the Bible, ( or hold to the Bible's incomprehensibility). If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, we may end up agreeing on minor points, but for the most part we will never agree on what the Bible is, means, says or teaches.

My faith is based on the Bible. You think the Bible is gibberish. That is only to be expected, because the Bible is impossible to understand without the illumination of the heart by the Holy Spirit.

It is pointless to debate, because we have no common ground whatsoever. If I want to, I can do research and see if what you say is valid about the turn the other cheek passage, ( I probably will, I'm always ready to learn something new), and if you want you can do some research on why Christians hold the Bible to be reliable, understandable, and relevant for life. There is plenty of materiel on both sides of the debate.

Regarding the rapture, all believers agree on what it is. It is the snatching up of believers from the earth to meet with their Lord in the air to be forever with the Lord.. It is explained in unmistakable terms in 1 Thessalonians 4. Read that, and tell me how many possible ways there are to interpret it. How it happens is simple, it is the power of God, just like the parting of the Red Sea, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the ascension of Jesus, which is very similar to the way believers will ascend to Heaven. Regarding the time of the end or destruction of the world, there are differences of opinions, because the Bible doesnt answer that question. That's why Harold Camping was in error. The numberiology that he used had no Biblical base. Why don't you call him and ask him how he came up with those numbers. He has a radio show.

We Christians can't answer for every charlatan or "off base" person that tries to interpret the Bible. Our faith is not in men. The authority that frames our belief does not rest on man. Our faith and our authority rests in One, namely Jesus Christ the righteous and true. Herein I stand, I can do no other.

May God Bless you.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday *DELETED* - 05/23/11 11:22 PM

Post deleted by LA Brown fan

Posted By: jfanent Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/23/11 11:46 PM

I just ran into Harold Camping, he looked really depressed. I said, "Cheer up, it's not the end of the world!".

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 12:51 AM

Here is an outline of the passage that contains the "turn the other cheek" quote. See if you can see the progression.

1. Jesus said that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ( experts of the OT Law)

2. Jesus raises the bar set by the Law to a higher level, with several contrasts.

a. The Law said do not murder... Jesus says do not demean your brother.
b. The Law said do not commit adultery... Jesus said do not lust for another mans wife.
c. The Law said if you divorce, give your wife a certificate of divorce...
Jesus said do not divorce at all, except in cases of infidelity.
d. The Law said keep your oaths, Jesus said be so honest that you don't have to take an oath for people to believe you.
e. The Law says eye for an eye... Jesus said do not retaliate, turn the other cheek.
f. It was said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy. ( This must be tradition, because nowhere does the Law say hate your enemy). Jesus said Love your enemy.

In conclusion- Be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect. ( perfect- Greek telios, completeness)

Jesus is saying that the Law of Moses was good, but not complete. Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. The Law came by Moses but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.

By this outline you can see that the "turn the other cheek" was part of a series of illustrations Jesus used in His sermon. The illustrations are showing the supremecy of Christ's Law, and deal with loving as God loves, and reflecting His integrity and faithfullness

To him who has an ear, let him hear.

Posted By: Ballpeen Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 01:08 AM

I just want to compliment both you guys on a nice debate.....good stuff on both sides.....I miss that around here.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 04:48 AM

Nelson, I just wanted to qualify the following statement, because the way I phrased it may seem insulting. The statement I want to qualify is...

... You think the Bible is gibberish. That is only to be expected, because the Bible is impossible to understand without the illumination of the heart by the Holy Spirit.

I just want you to understand that I am not saying that you are incapable of understanding the Bible through the Holy Spirit, just that you are not understanding it because you are trying to understand it through human reasoning. That is why it is gibberish to you. It is a spiritual book, and you are trying to understand it with a natural mind.

1 Corinthians 2:-.11 No one can know what anyone else is really thinking except that person alone, and no one can know God's thoughts except God's own Spirit. 12 And God has actually given us his Spirit (not the world's spirit) so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us. 13 When we tell you this, we do not use words of human wisdom. We speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths. 14 But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means

If you were to ask God to show you what it means, and then read it with an open and sincere heart, I believe that God will reveal it to you, but if you approach it with your mind already made up that its false, it will remain shrouded and veiled.

Luke 11:11 "You fathers -- if your children ask for a fish, do you give them a snake instead? 12 Or if they ask for an egg, do you give them a scorpion? Of course not! 13 If you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him

I'm not asking you to take a blind leap of faith, I'm just saying read the Bible with an open heart, and try asking God to help you understand it.

When I read the Bible I do two things. First I lay aside all presuppositions and prejudices, and secondly, I ask God to help me understand it. That is what I meant when I said the Bible can only be understood by one whose heart is illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 04:52 AM

Thank you, and I'm glad you are enjoying the discussion. I am grateful to Nelson for sharing his perspective.

By the way, I like the quote in your sig.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 05:26 AM

Divot, if you read this, I apologize for being so abrupt in my response to you. I hope the verse I provided was helpful.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 01:05 PM

Quote:

I just ran into Harold Camping, he looked really depressed. I said, "Cheer up, it's not the end of the world!".

Posted By: DCDAWGFAN Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 02:42 PM

This popped up in Greensboro, NC on Saturday..

web page

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 03:35 PM

I consider myself an agnostic on the subject of god, as in I am unsure of the existence or form of a supreme being.

I consider myself an Atheist on the subject of religion, in that I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there is no religion on the face of the earth that exists as such a supreme being would have created it.

I believe the Bible and other similar works to be the work of Man, not of God. I believe that Organized Religions have been directly responsible for more death, blood, and destruction than any other single cause other than the Bubonic Plague, in which organized religion played a significant part in making far worse.

What I see in organized religion is Man usurping for himself, not so much the power of God, but the mantle of his authority. Whenever someone says "God wants this or that", my response is "according to whom?"

When I refer to the book as "gibberish", I want to characterize that a bit as it is much like reading Shakespeare. The language is overly "flowery", for want of a better term, the motivations for actions seem unclear and overblown, it is difficult to follow. Some of it is fairly clear, much is self-contradictory. For instance, the bit you quoted about not getting into heaven without being more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees, I did not recall that one, I thought it was just accepting Jesus as your Savior, as in "None will go to the Father except thru me."

SFAIK there is an exception for babies, but what about all the Buddhists, Mormons, etc who are perfectly wonderful people but are operating under a slightly different rulebook. They should be excluded just because Books-a-million didn;t have a branch in their neighborhood a thousand years ago?

Now, back to this slapping business. Both in the interview I heard and my recollection of the text, Jesus was specific in identifying the particular cheek being struck. The quote was more than just "turn the other cheek", but "If he strike you upon the right cheek, offer him thy left." I will accept both your superior knowledge of the text and your honesty in giving an answer. Is the specific cheek mentioned in the text?

I am not contending that the interpretation I am offering is absolute fact. I AM saying that, IF the specific cheeks are in fact mentioned, there may very well be either a completely different main idea, or at the least an additional layer of meaning. This derives from a set of social rules that were completely different at the time, and points to a possible interpretation that is very different from what is generally accepted.

You yourself have stated that it might be possible that this was indeed the meaning of the text. If, and yes that is a big IF, but IF one of the most well-known and oft-quoted passages in the book has been so completely misunderstood, an almost complete 180 turn-around, what else has been changed by the hand of Man to be totally different from the original idea?

Posted By: Squires Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 03:38 PM

Quote:

This popped up in Greensboro, NC on Saturday..

[image]http://www.myfox8.com/news/wghp-story-nc-man-billboard-110523,0,300126.story[/image]

jc

Just fixing your link

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 03:47 PM

Just an update. The guy and his followers are rationalizing this away something fierce ...

Quote:

OAKLAND, California (AP) — California preacher Harold Camping said Monday his prophecy that the world would end was off by five months because Judgment Day actually will come on October 21.

Camping, who predicted that 200 million Christians would be taken to heaven Saturday before the Earth was destroyed, said he felt so terrible when his doomsday prediction did not come true that he left home and took refuge in a motel with his wife. His independent ministry, Family Radio International, spent millions — some of it from donations made by followers — on more than 5,000 billboards and 20 RVs plastered with the Judgment Day message.

But Camping said that he's now realized the apocalypse will come five months after May 21, the original date he predicted. He had earlier said Oct. 21 was when the globe would be consumed by a fireball.

It's not the first time the independent Christian radio host has been forced to explain when his prediction didn't come to pass. He also predicted the Apocalypse would come in 1994, but said it didn't happen then because of a mathematical error.

Rather than give his normal daily broadcast on Monday, Camping made a special statement before the press at the Oakland headquarters of the media empire that has broadcast his message. His show, "Open Forum," has for months headlined his doomsday message via the group's radio stations, TV channels, satellite broadcasts and website.
When the Rapture didn't arrive Saturday, crestfallen followers began turning their attention to more earthly concerns.

Jeff Hopkins had figured the gas money he spent driving back and forth from Long Island to New York City would be worth it, as long as people could see the ominous sign atop his car warning that the End of the World was nigh.

"I've been mocked and scoffed and cursed at and I've been through a lot with this lighted sign on top of my car," said Hopkins, 52, a former television producer who lives in Great River, New York. "I was doing what I've been instructed to do through the Bible, but now I've been stymied. It's like getting slapped in the face."

Apocalyptic thinking has always been part of American religious life and popular culture. Teachings about the end of the world vary dramatically — even within faith traditions — about how they will occur.

Still, the overwhelming majority of Christians reject the idea that the exact date or time of Jesus' return can be predicted.

Tim LaHaye, co-author of the best-selling "Left Behind" novels about the end times, recently called Camping's prediction "not only bizarre but 100 percent wrong!" He cited the bible verse Matthew 24:36, 'but about that day or hour no one knows" except God.

"While it may be in the near future, many signs of our times certainly indicate so, but anyone who thinks they 'know' the day and the hour is flat out wrong," LaHaye wrote on his Web site, leftbehind.com.

In 2009, the nonprofit Family Radio reported in IRS filings that it received $18.3 million in donations, and had assets of more than $104 million, including $34 million in stocks or other publicly traded securities.

AP link

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 05:11 PM

SOME of the millions they spent came from donations??? SOME??? Are they doing anything else productive to generate revenue, or does every single cent they take in come from donations from followers? Or profits from investments made with those donations?

I wonder how many little old ladies are eating cat food for dinner because they sent their last dime to this organization. I know that my own grandmother had to be stopped from doing something similar, many years ago. Sending nearly her last dime to some evangelist, I mean.

This is the poster child for why I dislike organized religion, and see absolutely no need for their existence. There is no certain way to distinguish the truly sincere from the snake-oil salesman. There are even some snake-oil salesman who are also truly sincere.

This guy just got up on a stump and said "Look here, folks, I've got the Word of God, now here's what you need to do...". IMO, more Evil than Good comes from this.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 05:24 PM

Quote:

"...For instance, the bit you quoted about not getting into heaven without being more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees, I did not recall that one, I thought it was just accepting Jesus as your Savior, as in "None will go to the Father except thru me..."

Jesus' quote that ones righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees is not teaching a different righteousness than that of faith. He said this because the scribes and Pharisees believed they were righteous due to their strict outward observance of the Law, but Jesus was saying that mere external obedience to the commands of God was not enough. It is possible to obey the Laws external commands, but break them in our hearts and minds. For example, I may have never murdered anyone, but if I hate someone I am guilty of breaking the Law. I may have never actually committed adultery, but if I ponder it in my heart or lust after another man's wife, I have broken the Law. I may never steal, but if I covet I have broken the Law, etc.

Jesus is telling them that they cant get by on merely keeping the external requirements of the Law, because God not only looks at our actions but He also looks at our hearts. We may appear outwardly good and righteous to everyone around us, but God knows the secrets of our hearts. Therefore, we need both forgiveness and inward change.

In another place, Jesus preached to the Pharisees and said...“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. ( Matthew 23:25-26)

Now Jesus wasnt talking about literal dishes and cups, He was saying that they worked so hard to make themselves righteous on the outside, but their hearts were still wicked. Now this does not only apply to them, but to us as well, for Jeremiah said, " ...the heart is deceitful above all things, desperately wicked, who can know it..." ( Jeremiah 17:9)

God promised to provide the needed internal change, ( which is received by faith), through a New Covenant in Jeremiah. The Law was the old covenenant, the Gospel is the New Covenant. That's why the sections of the Bible are called the Old and New Testament. ( the same Greek word is translated both testament and covenant in the New Testament). God describes the New Covenant in Jeremiah 33:31-34, I wil not post the whole passage here, you can look it up if you want, but the New Covenant includes the promises that God would change believers internally, He would be their God, they would know Him, and that He would forgive their sins. If you want to know why God had an Old Covenant and replaced it with the New Covenant, I can explain that to you in another post. I just wanted to give you a basic overview of what Jesus was saying. I am trying to keep this as brief as possible.

So the statement that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and phrarisees does not contradict the teaching of righteousness by faith in Christ, it reveals why we need to trust in Christ, ie our own righteousness is not enough The scribes and Pharisees were the most religious people around, but as I said earlier, religion is not nearly enough

Regarding my misquoting the cheek passage, pardon me, I was merely paraphrasing. Your point is well taken. But the fact that the sides of the face are mentioned does not disallow the interpretation that I offered. As far as your interpretation, I would say that if it is contrary to the way this passage has been interpreted for 2,000 years, then you would have to have more historical documentation then quoting some unknown guy on the radio.

In conclusion, when you look at all the passages I quoted and how they fit together in an unmistakable way, it is clear that the Bible has remarkable internal consistency. Those who say it contradicts itself simply do not understand its teachings.

Posted By: no_logo_required Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 06:22 PM

Quote:

This is the poster child for why I dislike organized religion, and see absolutely no need for their existence.

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 06:49 PM

Quote:

This is the poster child for why I dislike organized religion, and see absolutely no need for their existence. There is no certain way to distinguish the truly sincere from the snake-oil salesman. There are even some snake-oil salesman who are also truly sincere.

Sure. You see it in the modern "alternative medicine" movement where people are willing to listen and buy from these "gurus" while shunning "western" medicine because they "are driven by money." Even though the evidence is piled up against people who believe homeopathic remedies, acupuncture or reiki does anything, they still go on about their merry ways claiming they're the ones with the open minds and we're absolutely wrong. They're so invested both mind and body that it would literally rock the foundations of their lives to change their mind. When something occurs to throw a shadow on their belief, they try to rationalize it away in a way that still allows them to hold their belief even if the rationalization makes even less sense.

Take Camping's new prediction. According to him, Jesus is back, but only in spirit. He came back took pity on the rest of 6.7 billion humans and belayed the tribulation order. But, He'll still blow up the world in October, don't worry. And you know what? His (Camping) staunchest supporters are still with him. It's amazing what we can convince ourselves of sometimes.

Posted By: Divot Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 07:07 PM

Quote:

Divot, if you read this, I apologize for being so abrupt in my response to you. I hope the verse I provided was helpful.

No offense taken as none was intended, and I hope this is helpful for you.

Deuteronomy 19:
18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 07:19 PM

I don't know about organized religion, but Harold Camping is not a good example of conservative, evangelical Christianity. Evangelical Christians are aware that "no man knows the day or the hour of Christ's return...". People who try to predict when Jesus will return are contradicting the clear teachings of Jesus.

I'm sorry, but you cant lump all "God believers" with Harold Camping any more than you can lump all evolutionists with atheists or lump all atheists with Josef Stalin, or lump everyone who hates organized religion with Karl Marx. There are many pseudo-Christian movements. If you wonder why, read the following passage.

Matthew 13:24Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

and its interpretation...

Matthew 13:36Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 07:38 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry, but you cant lump all "God believers" with Harold Camping

I wasn't. My response was about modern day snake oil salesmen and their ilk, something that Nelson was talking about. I referred to Camping and his followers because he represents the most current example of people who were demonstrably wrong yet still hold to their beliefs even though they have to twist words meanings and whatnot to do it.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 07:43 PM

Thank you for the scripture. It does clearly say that one who was found guilty of false accusation would have to bear the punishment that would have been meted out on the falsely accused, but it also says this...

Leviticus 24:19- And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

So both of our statements are true.

I know the idea of "eye for eye" is a tough pill to swallow, but it actually acted as a deterrent, and it was not teaching personal vengeance. Tt was a judicial punishment imposed by the governing leaders.

This brings me to another point. Some people erroneously think that if the Bible teaches something than it is applicable for all people and all ages. So they think that Christians believe in killing witches or adulterers or people that hold different beliefs. Of course, the moral and spiritual principles of the Bible always apply in every age, yet some of the legislative commands, like take the idol worshipper out and let them die by stoning, does not apply to 20th century America or even in First century Jerusalem, ( See John 8). It applied to Israel in the centuries before Christ. Why is this so? Because God was intent on preserving a nation. Evil is progressive and if it is allowed to grow unchecked it is like a cancer that will destroy an entire nation. God put these laws into place to preserve Israel, because Israel was the nation God chose to send His Son into the world. When Israel turned away from God, it caused terrible consequences. God placed these harsh punishments on individuals to mitigate His discipline of the nation, and to prevent them from falling into calamnity. Israel was a special nation, so needed special protection.

The nation of Israel needed to maintain her identity as a holy, ( separate), people in order for the Saviour to come for the whole world.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/24/11 07:48 PM

I'm sorry Draftdayz, my response wasnt directed at you but at Nelson, even though I responded to your post. From previous discussions I had with you, you don't seem to be someone who stereotypes people. Everything I said in that post was in response to what Nelson said about organized religion, none of it was directed at you or anything you said.

Posted By: Ballpeen Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/25/11 12:17 AM

Quote:

Thank you, and I'm glad you are enjoying the discussion. I am grateful to Nelson for sharing his perspective.

By the way, I like the quote in your sig.

Thanks....that's mine and have told my wife to have it inscribed on my headstone.

.

I have tried to hold it true for the last 40 years.

She says I want to live forever. I say who wouldn't want me to live forever??

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/25/11 01:21 AM

Quote:

Still, the overwhelming majority of Christians reject the idea that the exact date or time of Jesus' return can be predicted.

Tim LaHaye, co-author of the best-selling "Left Behind" novels about the end times, recently called Camping's prediction "not only bizarre but 100 percent wrong!" He cited the bible verse Matthew 24:36, 'but about that day or hour no one knows" except God."While it may be in the near future, many signs of our times certainly indicate so, but anyone who thinks they 'know' the day and the hour is flat out wrong,"

Tim Lahaye in his quote is giving the orthodox Christiain view of the second coming. I really feel bad for Campings followers, because rather than realize that they are following a teacher that promulgates error and mistranslates and distorts the Bible, they will probably either continue to listen to him, or many will lose faith in God. The sad thing is that their trust has not been betrayed because God failed to keep His promise, but because someone went around saying things that God never said. If you are a believer, never base your faith in the words of your pastor or a preacher on TV or the radio, especially when they teach words contrary to God's Word. Read the Bible for yourself and see if what they say is Biblical or not. God's word has never failed, though the doctrines and teachings of men often do.

If Mr Camping was wise he would retract everything he said regarding the date of Christ's second coming, return the donation money he spent on billboards as much as he could and pay for them himself, and then get on his knees and ask God to forgive him after asking his followers for forgiveness. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging Harold Camping, I am discerning the error of his message.

This is not what Christianity teaches.

Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/25/11 01:37 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Thank you, and I'm glad you are enjoying the discussion. I am grateful to Nelson for sharing his perspective.

By the way, I like the quote in your sig.

Thanks....that's mine and have told my wife to have it inscribed on my headstone.

.

I have tried to hold it true for the last 40 years.

She says I want to live forever. I say who wouldn't want me to live forever??

Would you have to be able to speak and/or type for all of those years ....?

J/K .... although ... you might get more positive votes if ........... LOL

Posted By: ClayM57 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/25/11 11:16 AM

j/k

The guys a nut case who doesnt have a clue.....and his followers have even bigger problems

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/25/11 02:51 PM

Very interesting choice for a passage to quote. There are quite a few that refer to false prophets and false religions, but this ain't one of them.

At least it does seem to have a clear message, or does it? More on that in a moment.

So is what you are saying is that this Mr. Camping, who has read the same book as you, probably followed all the rules too, but after carefully studying it, and I'm sure praying about it, believes he has read definite statements that indicate particular truths. Any of this sound familiar? Now, because this fellow says he has some "truths" that differ from your "truths", he is a Son of the Devil and should burn in fire forever? Is that what you are saying? Because I read NOTHING in that passage about false prophets or false messages, just wiping out evil.

What is that line about "Judge Not"? I know I've read it, just want to make sure that you have.

That is about the level of intolerence I have come to expect from most God-fearing Christians.

As for the parable, I have another interpretation. Some will say he is using the harvesting of the field to illustrate the end of the world. I would see it exactly the opposite.

I assume that "tares" is "weeds" or something similar, interesting this is similar to a Latin word related to balancing a scale. Now, folks, these days if you fail to weed your garden you might be short of flowers for your centerpiece, or not have enough fresh tomatoes for your chili and have to buy canned. 2,000 years ago, if you failed to weed your fields your neighbors would find the emaciated bodies of you and your family, huddled together in your 2-room mud-brick hovel, after you had all starved to death during the winter. Rather than the "end of the world" , sometime in the far future, being similar to weeding your field, I think it said that failing to weed your field WOULD BE the end of YOUR world, in just the next few months. To THOSE people, at THAT time, this would be the more important concept.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/25/11 07:29 PM

Quote:

So is what you are saying is that this Mr. Camping, who has read the same book as you, probably followed all the rules too...

Wrong! Mr Camping uses an extreme allegorical method to interpret the scriptures, whereas I interpret the Bible literally, unless the context indicates clearly that it should be interpreted otherwise. If you think Mr. Camping is interpreting the Bible and only the Bible, please show me a passage that indicates that 5 means perfection, 10 means redemption, and whatever the other number was means going to heaven. If you think this is in the Bible, Just go to http://www.biblestudytools.com click on Strongs concordance, then you can type in the word five or ten or seventeen ( I think that was the third number), and it will give you every occurrance of those numbers in the Bible. Then, get back to mell me where you can find any basis for his numerical system.

Quote:

What is that line about "Judge Not"? I know I've read it, just want to make sure that you have.

I am not judging Mr Camping, I am discerning the error in his message.

Quote:

Now, because this fellow says he has some "truths" that differ from your "truths",

His truths didnt end up being true, did they?

Quote:

he is a Son of the Devil and should burn in fire forever? Is that what you are saying?

I never in any way, shape, or form indicated that Harold Camping was going to Hell. If you would bother to read the parable, you would see that the farmer, ( sower) was asked by his servants if they should remove the tares. He said do not remove the tares because you may root up the wheat with them, let both grow together till the harvest. I cannot say that anyone is going to Hell, because first of all I do not know their hearts. Some appear to be tares at times but are in fact wheat, some appear to be wheat but are actually tares. If you study the background, I believe in the early stages of growth, wheat and tares look similar, but when they are fully grown you can better tell the difference. So it is not always possible to tell who are the wheat and who are the tares, that is Gods job. Nevertheless, the tares exist, as well as the wheat.

When this age ends God will separate the wheat from the tares when He judges the world.

With this in mind my quoting of the parable of the sower was not intended to call Mr. Camping a tare. Only God knows who are His. I quoted the parable of the sower in reference to pseudo Christians, the ones who give Christianity such a bad name that you hate organized religion.

Quote:

Because I read NOTHING in that passage about false prophets or false messages, just wiping out evil.

So giving false prophets and false prophecies arent evil?!! Now I'm not saying it is "deliberate" evil. People often do evil things when they think that they are doing good. That does not justify them though.

Quote:

As for the parable, I have another interpretation. Some will say he is using the harvesting of the field to illustrate the end of the world.

Yes, some would say that, including Jesus, because He interpreted the parable for us, remember? Read the below passage again, I guess you didnt read it the first time.

Matthew 13:37He, ( Jesus) answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world;

Quote:

What is that line about "Judge Not"? I know I've read it, just want to make sure that you have.

Have you read this passage?

1 John 4:1- Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.

Just because we are not judges, ( which I agree with you on), doesnt mean that we can't have discernment.

Now I am not saying Mr Camping is a false prophet, but he has declared a prophecy or prediction if you prefer that was false. That is why I said he should retract, make restitution, and ask God and his followers for forgiveness. Not because he is not saved, ( I do not know that, only God does), but because he is in error.

I am not condemning Mr Camping, I am refuting his message. My quote about the parable of the sower was in context to my statement about pseudo Christians, the ones you say make old ladies eat cat food and such. I don't know if Mr Camping is one of those, ( a Pseudo Christian), but you were the one who pointed the accusing finger at him first. If I may quote you...

Quote:

This is the poster child for why I dislike organized religion, and see absolutely no need for their existence.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/25/11 11:02 PM

Your John 4.1 quote would seem to apply to this situation, and is directly related.

However, your original quote is related ONLY if you choose to believe, and you certainly did, IMO, Imply, that Mr Camping is evil and is going to hell. If it relates to Pseudo-christians in any way, whatsoever, the ONLY "context" I can discern is if pseudo-christians are evil and are going to hell. You did state that his message was evil

If it was not your intention to imply that Mr Camping was evil and should suffer in fire for eternity, then you need to be a HELL of a lot more careful how you quote scripture.

I said he read the same book you did, you stated "WRONG", because, evidently, he did not read it the same Way that you did. By "rules" that he followed I was not referring to rules for reading (I am currently unaware that there are any) but rules as set forth in the book such as "do unto others". If there is a rule that states that you must read and believe in the same way that LAB does, because that's the only correct way, I have not yet come across one..

Still don't know what a "tare" is, SFAIK most weeds are easily discernible from wheat in the very early stages of growth. Moreover, to tell a Bronze Age farmer not to weed their fields, when doing so was literally a matter of life and death, would have been dismissed by most. If the parable suggests to wait and let God sort them out, just like waiting to weed the field, the logical conclusion would seem to be that if we wait, we starve and die. So we should get out our pitchforks and torches and hunt down whoever we think the evil ones are.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/25/11 11:04 PM

Your John 4.1 quote would seem to apply to this situation, and is directly related.

However, your original quote is related ONLY if you choose to believe, and you certainly did, IMO, Imply, that Mr Camping is evil and is going to hell. If it relates to Pseudo-christians in any way, whatsoever, the ONLY "context" I can discern is if pseudo-christians are evil and are going to hell. You did state that his message was evil

If it was not your intention to imply that Mr Camping was evil and should suffer in fire for eternity, then you need to be a HELL of a lot more careful how you quote scripture.

I said he read the same book you did, you stated "WRONG", because, evidently, he did not read it the same Way that you did. By "rules" that he followed I was not referring to rules for reading (I am currently unaware that there are any) but rules as set forth in the book such as "do unto others". If there is a rule that states that you must read and believe in the same way that LAB does, because that's the only correct way, I have not yet come across one..

Still don't know what a "tare" is, SFAIK most weeds are easily discernible from wheat in the very early stages of growth. Moreover, to tell a Bronze Age farmer not to weed their fields, when doing so was literally a matter of life and death, would have been dismissed by most. If the parable suggests to wait and let God sort them out, just like waiting to weed the field, the logical conclusion would seem to be that if we wait, we starve and die. So we should get out our pitchforks and torches and hunt down whoever we think the evil ones are. Because that is CLEARLY what God is telling us to do. See, you have to read these things in context.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 01:45 AM

Show me where I said Harold Camping was evil and should or will burn in hell?

My point with quoting the parable of the sower was that it is no mystery why there are false teachings and false practices in the church. Nowhere did I apply it to Harold Camping. I applied it to false teachers in general.

Here are some interesting quotes by Martin Luther on this passage. I will add the views of some other great Bible teachers later as time permits.

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mltares.htm

Regarding the tares:

Sowed tares - By "tares" is probably meant a degenerate kind of wheat, or the darnel-grass growing in Palestine. In its growth and form it has a strong resemblance to genuine wheat; but it either produces no grain, or that of a very inferior and hurtful kind. Probably it comes near to what we mean by "chess." It was extremely difficult to separate it from the genuine wheat, on account of its similarity while growing. ( Barnes)

13:25 But while men slept - They ought to have watched: the Lord of the field sleepeth not. His enemy came and sowed darnel - This is very like wheat, and commonly grows among wheat rather than among other grain: but tares or vetches are of the pulse kind, and bear no resemblance to wheat. ( Wesley)

http://bible.cc/matthew/13-25.htm

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 05:29 AM

Quote:

However, your original quote is related ONLY if you choose to believe, and you certainly did, IMO, Imply, that Mr Camping is evil and is going to hell. If it relates to Pseudo-christians in any way, whatsoever, the ONLY "context" I can discern is if pseudo-christians are evil and are going to hell. You did state that his message was evil

Pseudo Christians are in danger of going to hell. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can say who is going to Hell, because God is drawing men and women to repentance, and their fate is not sealed until they die or until Jesus returns, whichever comes first. By the way, I did not mean to imply that Camping was a Pseudo Christian, just that pseudo Christianity is responsible for a lot of the errors in theology. Yet not all. Some errors are due to the fact that no-one but God is infallible. I used the parable of the sower to explain why there is error and false teaching in the church, not to indite Mr Camping of chicanery. For all I know he probably believes what he teaches, and I think he does. Yet that does not mean that he is right, and sincerity does not make him a christian any more than fallibility makes someone a non-Christian. Only God knows his heart.

You seem to imply that because there are Christians that make absurd predictions and claims that all Christians are crackpots. That assumption was what I was addressing when I quoted the parable of the sower, not the claims of Harold Camping. You took what I said out of context.

Quote:

If it was not your intention to imply that Mr Camping was evil and should suffer in fire for eternity, then you need to be a HELL of a lot more careful how you quote scripture.

I never said he was evil or that he should suffer fire for eternity. Where do you read that. The true Biblical view is that everyone, ( except those still in the age of innocence), deserve to go to hell. I deserve to go to hell, you deserve to go to hell, the apostle Paul deserved to go to hell, etc etc. That's why Jesus came to die on the cross, to save us from what we deserved. This is called grace.If I were to say that he should go to Hell I would be condemning myself, because I too deserve to go to Hell. This is what Jesus meant when He said Judge not lest you be judged.

I

Quote:

said he read the same book you did, you stated "WRONG", because, evidently, he did not read it the same Way that you did. By "rules" that he followed I was not referring to rules for reading (I am currently unaware that there are any)

Many people are currently unaware that there are rules for interpreting the Bible. That's why there are so many bad theologies out there. The rules for translating the Bible are called "hermeneutics".

Quote:

If there is a rule that states that you must read and believe in the same way that LAB does, because that's the only correct way, I have not yet come across one..:

The rule is not to interpret the Bible the way LAB does, it is the rules of hermeneutics. I did not invent "hermeneutics", but It is flattering that you think I did.

Quote:

Still don't know what a "tare" is, SFAIK most weeds are easily discernible from wheat in the very early stages of growth

I am not an expert, but I read somewhere that what I described fits the Lolium temulentum. Like I said, I am not an expert, so if I am wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Quote:

Moreover, to tell a Bronze Age farmer not to weed their fields, when doing so was literally a matter of life and death, would have been dismissed by most.

The sower said to let both grow together, then at the harvest the wheat and the tares could be separated; This implies that the wheat would not be lost.
.

Quote:

If the parable suggests to wait and let God sort them out, just like waiting to weed the field,

That is exactly what it is saying.

Quote:

the logical conclusion would seem to be that if we wait, we starve and die.

Says who?

Quote:

So we should get out our pitchforks and torches and hunt down whoever we think the evil ones are. Because that is CLEARLY what God is telling us to do. See, you have to read these things in context.

You are the only one that I am aware of that has interpreted this passage that way in the 2,000 years it has been studied. Can you name a reputable scholar who interprets the parable this way? You cant just make the Bible mean something because you say so.

For example, you said earlier that the harvest was not referring to the end of the world, when Jesus, ( the one who told this parable), said it did. I guess Jesus should have asked Nelson what He meant before He told His parables. :

By the way, do you know the "rules" for interpreting the meaning of "parables". Here are two important guidelines that you are obviously and blatantly ignoring.

1. "Take note that not every detail in a parable has special significance. Show discernment in knowing which parts of the parable are crucial to the point of the parable and those parts which function as window dressing. For example, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan the priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan all have special significance, but the road, the innkeeper, and the two denarii function as supporting details for the main point."

2. Look for the main point of a parable. Most parables are driving home one overarching truth or principle although there may be exceptions at times.

There are other rules for interpreting parables. Here is the link.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/page/page/4381589.htm

With regards

Posted By: Moxdawg Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 06:02 AM

Why are you arguing with an atheist or what ever he calls himself. Your quoting of Scripture means nothing to him. He doesn't believe or understand it and never will. You will not change his mind anymore than he will change yours

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 06:36 AM

I fully understand that he does not believe the Bible, but I have no problem in answering him, because in all these posts I have discussed the word of God and spoken about Jesus and that's all I want to do. My replies are just as much, actually moreso, for others who may end up reading these posts than for Nelson. I know that there are those who have their minds made up as atheists and others who are strong in their faith in God, but there are others who fall somewhere in between. I am mainly answering for them, should they happen to read this thread. But you are correct, because the whole discussion degenerated into vain arguments. Nevertheless, we did talk about the Bible, and salvation, and the second coming, and the truth, and the teachings of Jesus, etc. So in that sense, I do not regret it.

I do recognize that Nelson has merely been argumentative and just throwing random arguments out there, ( at least that's the way it appeared), but I don't mind putting scriptures on here. Nelson just gave me an opportunity to share what I believe, even though I did play into some of his arguments at times, which may have been counterproductive. Nevertheless, if I limp I will run with a limp

But I think you are right. I have probably said enough.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 01:40 PM

Here are a couple excerpts from the Martin Luther sermon I posted a link for last night, along with a few comments from me. I had never read this sermon before I posted the link, yet I am basically saying the same things that he said hundreds of years ago.

Quote:

"...this parable treats not of false Christians, who are so only outwardly in their lives, but of those who are unchristian in their doctrine..."

LAB Note- Doctrine means teaching.

Quote:

"...And the sum of all is that we should not marvel nor be terrified if there spring up among us many different false teachings and false faiths. Satan is constantly among the children of God. (Job 1:6)..."

(LABNote): This means that many false teachings are inspired by satan, not that the false teachers are satan. Satan will even seduce and deceive people who are true Christians, if they let him.

Quote:

"... this Gospel teaches how we should conduct ourselves toward these heretics and false teachers. We are not to uproot nor destroy them... for in this matter he who errs today may find the truth tomorrow..."

LAB note- In other words, just because someone is teaching falsely in the present, does not mean they are a tare, for they may later realize their error. The fact that they realize their error would then indicate that they are of the wheat. Those who willfully remain in error are the tares. Only God knows if they are wheat or tares in the final verdict. We are unable to know the condition or eternal destiny of others.

Quote:

"...Therefore this passage should in all reason terrify the grand inquisitors and murderers of the people, where they are not brazened faced, even if they have to deal with true heretics. But at present they burn the true saints and are themselves heretics. What is that but uprooting the wheat, and pretending to exterminate the tares, like insane people?"

LAB note- No Christians shouldnt get their pitchforks and torches out like you say. God is the only judge. The Christian is to refute false teaching, not condemn the false teacher.

This will be my last post on this topic unless someone posts a sincere question that needs to be answered..

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 02:09 PM

I would guess you haven't dealt much with farming?

When you grow Food in a field, ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL which grows in that field that is NOT food, means that you will produce LESS food than if all the non-food items growing there were removed. By allowing "tares" to grow to maturity along with the wheat, much wheat has been lost before the harvest even begins.

The concept that either that field produces enough to eat through the winter or the family starves to death would have been crystal-clear 2,000 years ago. No grocery stores or Salvation Army to help you out, no relief helicopters, You grew it so You could eat it or You died. The loss of any significant amount of harvest was not just a minor inconvenience. People often would make a decision which child would live, and which would not be fed because there was not enough for all.

Let me try another example. If I were to tell you a story, and part of that story was "don't change the oil in your car", because somebody else would do it for you, and related that to a different story where somebody else would do something else for you, would you not say to yourself "I HAVE to change the oil in my car, there is nobody else to do it for me, perhaps I should do this other thing for myself, as well"?

i understand that you cannot make the Bible say anything you want it to. So tell me again, exactly what species and genus of plant is a "tare" and where did this information come from? If you make a "tare" a non-wheat plant that looks a lot like wheat, this somewhat weakens my position but if it is an easily distinguishable weed then it does not. I'll grant that the plant you describe actually exists but what basis is there for deciding what a "tare" is?

These "rules" you have for reading the Bible, these "rules" which, in effect, tell you what it says because they tell you how to interpret it, where exactly did these come from? Are they a work of God, or a work of man?

What you said in points 1 and 2 was essentially pick and choose what you want to emphasize. I am doing just exactly that. Is there ANYONE who can tell me that I am not choosing the correct items? You also missed my meaning somewhat, I meant to say that rather that the altered harvest being a metaphor for the end of the world, I see the end of the world as being the metaphor for the altered harvest.

Further, this "altered harvest" with the sons of the devil coming to full growth seemed to Cause the end of the world. While this may or may not be a bad thing, the altered harvest of wheat certainly was. It was also known at the time that this was bad, and easily correctable by weeding. Unless, of course, these weeds were those "special" weeds that looked just like wheat. I would take from that passage that just as Man should weed his fields, he should also "weed out" the sons of the Devil from among the population.

What you have is a bunch of men decide what a passage means, and then they decide how to explain it. Pretty much the exact same method used to determine that the sun went around the earth. Same group of dudes decided that anyone with ACTUAL PROOF that they were wrong should be put to death.

You have heard of the Dark Ages? They were dark largely because organized religion put out the lights. Not YOUR religion, of course. It was those other guys.

If you answered my direct question on whether or not Jesus mentioned the specific cheek, I missed it. What do these "rules" say about that, for what reason would he be specific, and not just say "if a person strikes you"? Why pick out one of the few areas of the body where a blow was not just a physical attack, but almost definitely a demeaning of the person's worth and value? Why offer a specific alternative that did not carry any status messages? Is this just accidental, or is there additional meaning in this passage? Who is it that decides the answer to this question?

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 02:21 PM

Can you tell me what good ol' Marty was saying other than "IMO, what this Book says does not mean what you think it means."

Also, after he said that, were there any pitchforks and torches involved?

Posted By: DCDAWGFAN Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 03:18 PM

I have enjoyed reading much of this religious discussion lately.. I'm reminded of the Christian Church during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. During the revolution, as the barbaric and oppressive Bolsheviks were seizing power and beginning their decades long reign of death and destruction on the people and the economy of Russia. A reign which would ultimately force people of all faiths underground to practice their religion in secret lest they be discovered and forced to pay a pretty steep penalty, up to and including death..... the Christian Church within Russia was also embroiled in a very heated argument that occupied much of their time and their energy. It seems that, within the church, they couldn't agree on the size and quantity of candles to have on the alter during service.

A few things I've learned over the years and it applies to faith as well as to politics.. you aren't ever going to win somebody over to your way of thinking by dissecting the details... Discussing the genus and species of a "tare" could be an interesting intellectual debate within the Christian faith but I would suspect nobody has ever come to faith or left faith based on that discussion.

See, for evil to overcome the people in faith requires much the same tactics as overcoming the people in politics.. get them arguing over stupid details that don't really matter while you rob them blind of everything they own....

So... taxes are too high, our government wastes too much money and intrudes into our lives, the forces of good and wickedness are swirling around us and we need to love the Lord our God with all out heart and soul and love our neighbors as ourselves... regardless of what species a "tare" is..

Posted By: FloridaFan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 03:41 PM

Quote:

you aren't ever going to win somebody over to your way of thinking by dissecting the details

I was a a Satanist up until a yesterday and reading about the Tare species.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 03:56 PM

"Marty" used the laws of exegesis to interpret the passage, instead of using eisegesis.

ex·e·ge·sis- a critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.

Eisegesis- eis·e·ge·sis–noun, plural -ses  [-seez] Show IPA.
an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.
.
And your the one who mentioned pitchforks, I was responding to you "eisegeses" of the text.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 04:09 PM

Did you read the law of interpreting parables that said " Look for the main point of a parable. Most parables are driving home one overarching truth or principle although there may be exceptions at times."

Jesus is not talking about farming, He is talking about the kingdom of God. The wheat and the tares are not literal wheat and tares, they refer to people within the visible kingdom.

Posted By: DCDAWGFAN Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 04:13 PM

Quote:

Quote:

you aren't ever going to win somebody over to your way of thinking by dissecting the details

I was a a Satanist up until a yesterday and reading about the Tare species.

Welcome to the faith brother.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 04:53 PM

Good post, and I agree the discussion of the genus of the tare will not convert anyone. That was just a side point to the main discussion. Some of the points of the main discussion are:

1. That the only defense against false teaching is a careful reading of the Bible, like the Berean Christians.

2. That false prophecy in no way reflects on whether the Bible is reliable or not, because false prophecy is always contrary to sound Biblical teaching. The Bible even predicted beforehand that many would come and pervert the scriptures. The apostles obviously thought this was important for people to know. They spoke on the subject as much as anything else.

3.That the vast majority of objections by agnostics and atheists against the truth of the Bible are due to a misinterpretation of what the Bible says.

3. That misinterpretations of the Bible are often due to the failure of people to follow the laws of exegesis and hermeneutics.

4. That the Bible has remarkable internal consistency, despite the claims of nonbelievers that it contradicts itself.

5. That the Old and New Testaments do not contradict, but compliment each other.

Basically there is an all out attack on the Bible, not only on this message board, but in society at large. Should Christians be silent while the Bible is slandered and maligned by lies. Were the apostles and church fathers silent?

Also, while my arguments will not change anyones mind, ( I wholeheartedly agree with you there), I did post numerous scriptures, and scriptures are able to not only change minds but also hearts. Human wisdom has no power, but the Word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two edged sword. So if you please, ignore everything I said and just read the scriptures. They are able to make people wise.

I hope someone reads the scriptures even if only to try to prove them wrong, because if they read it, a seed may be planted. Of course, the parable of the sower shows that not every seed will bear fruit, but that's God's concern not mine. There have been atheists and agnostics that were converted to Christianity because they read the Bible trying to prove it wrong. This is a miracle only God can perform.

Remember, if we sow sparingly, we will reap sparingly, and God also said that His Word would not return to Him empty, but it would accomplish what He desires and achieve its purpose. ( Isaiah 55:11). Now when I say God's Word, I do not mean the explanations that I made in attempting to interpret it, but the scriptures themselves, of which I have posted numerous.

Here are some links to help people who may want to investigate the teachings of the Bible. They all provide free resources. The greatest resource is the Bible itself

http://www.crosswalk.com/ Bibles and study tools.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/ Interlinear Bible with Hebrew and Greek text, and dictionary.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Numerous study tools like concordances, dictionary, Hebrew and Greek text, etc.

The greatest help in understanding the Bible is the Holy Spirit Himself.

BTW- thank you for this statement. I agree wholeheartedly

Quote:

So... taxes are too high, our government wastes too much money and intrudes into our lives, the forces of good and wickedness are swirling around us and we need to love the Lord our God with all out heart and soul and love our neighbors as ourselves... regardless of what species a "tare" is..

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 05:19 PM

So it is your Opinion that Marty's Opinion was not Opinion at all, but a logical response to the incorrect Opinion of the prevailing Church authorities? Did any of those authorities think they were wrong, at the time?

Was not Martin Luther chased with pitchforks and torches, more than once? Was this for any other reason than that he disagreed with Church Authority? That the almost universal prevailing Opinion differed from his Opinion?

It is your Opinion that to correctly evaluate a parable you must first form a correct Opinion.

The parable talked about farming. It talked about the end of the world. You obviously have the Opinion that the end of the world is the most important part. You probably don't have a field to tend, and certainly would not be dead in 6 months if you failed to do so. The folks who first heard this story, for the most part, did have a field. The end of the world might be in 6 months, or 6,000 years. Winter and starvation had a much more definite timeline.

These people knew what happened to others whose fields did not produce, for whatever reason. They BURIED THE BODIES almost every year. Fairy stories about the end of the world were far less important than an immediate, pressing need that they dealt with on a regular basis.

Like the candles on the altar, as mentioned, most of this has no real purpose. However, MY goal is that when somebody says "God says THIS is the correct number of candles", there will be somebody available to say "well, maybe, maybe not." Possibly even someone who says "You know what, i don't see a darn thing in this book about candles, I'm the guy buying, making, lighting, cleaning, and putting them out, I'll make the decision, now GTFO of my way. Go to your house, buy your own candles, and fire up as many as you wish."

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 05:41 PM

Here's a little research for you.

There is no consensus what exactly a "tare" is. The most likely candidate is Darnell weed, which does resemble wheat, IN THE EARLY STAGES OF LIFE.

There are other related plants and no one knows for sure which was meant, if indeed any specific plant were indicated.

Well before Harvest time, the difference is easily detectable. Darnell weed is sometimes called "false wheat" and is apparently edible, though not nearly as productive as real wheat.

The plant may have recreational drug uses. It is in the Sativa family, related to marijuana. It and it's relatives are sometimes called "vetches".

Deliberately sowing Darnell into wheat fields was not an unknown act.

Darnell was most definitely considered to be something which reduced the yield of a wheat field. It was considered important to remove it from the wheat field well before harvest time.

Posted By: DCDAWGFAN Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 05:51 PM

Wow, I have to give you serious props for the time and energy and research you are putting in to make your points about a biblical story regarding wheat and tare...

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 06:36 PM

Yes, Luther was chased by the Catholic Church for disagreeing. Just because someone does something in the name of God doesnt mean God endorses it. Luther was a threat to the power of the Church, and he also was making them lose a lot of money because he taught against the practice of selling indulgences.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 06:43 PM

Quote:

Here's a little research for you.

There is no consensus what exactly a "tare" is. The most likely candidate is Darnell weed, which does resemble wheat, IN THE EARLY STAGES OF LIFE.

There are other related plants and no one knows for sure which was meant, if indeed any specific plant were indicated.

Well before Harvest time, the difference is easily detectable. Darnell weed is sometimes called "false wheat" and is apparently edible, though not nearly as productive as real wheat.

The plant may have recreational drug uses. It is in the Sativa family, related to marijuana. It and it's relatives are sometimes called "vetches".

Deliberately sowing Darnell into wheat fields was not an unknown act.

Darnell was most definitely considered to be something which reduced the yield of a wheat field. It was considered important to remove it from the wheat field well before harvest time.

Interesting post. Thank you. Remember that parables are not meant to be interpreted literally, and their purpose the vast majority of the time is to focus on one single point or principle. In this case, the point Jesus is making is that the kingdom of darkness will grow alongside and be mingled with the kingdom of Light to the point that in the end only God can sort it all out. Jesus is not giving a clinic on how to farm, He is explaining a spiritual reality, using terms His listeners would understand. This type of speaking is very common.

For example Jesus described false teachers as wolves in sheeps clothing. Do literal wolves actually put on sheepskin? Of course not, it is an idiom describing the way false teachers often look harmless, but are actually very dangerous. Or when Jesus says that God clothes the grass of the field, does it mean that He knits pants and shirts for the grass on the ground.

How about common english idioms, like "put on your thinking cap". Is there really a hat that makes you smarter. Or "in one ear and out the other". Does this actually happen? "How about, "it aint over till the fat lady sings"? Have you ever seen an aria at a baseball or football game? Or "everyone knows that", does that mean that everyone in the world knows what we're talking about when we say that. If we took everything people said literally all the time like you are doing, we would never stop arguing.

Remember I said that I believe in interpreting the Bible literally unless the context clearly indicates it should be interpreted otherwise? Well, the type of literature also indicates whether a passage should be interpreted literally or allegorically. This is a parable, parables are usually symbolic

In this case, "let both grow together until the harvest is a typical" ( type) of saying the kingdom of darkness and light will not be separated until the judgement day, they will continue to grow together and co-mingle throughout this age.

.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/26/11 10:15 PM

It would appear from some research that there was a time when various people who were deep in thought would, in fact, wear an actual cap while doing so.

Also, an opera often does have a heavyweight female sing the grand finale.

Did you know that "Ring around the Rosie" is actually talking about the bubonic plague? That meaning is largely lost today, only 500 to 800 years after the actual event.

In reply to DCDAWG's post about religion and politics being similarly unargueable, I disagree. IMO politicians, and religious leaders, are able to do what they do because too many of the people to whom they are speaking are ignorant of the facts.

This ignorance manifests itself not only as people not knowing what the actual facts really are, but also as people thinking that certain things are indeed factual when they are not.

The consensus that "tares" are actually Darnell weed has nothing whatsoever to do with any factual information from the original text in any way, shape, or form. Darnell weed is by that consensus the plant that allows the original text to make the most sense, given the common interpretation. Any one of the several dozens of common weed types that could also be "tares" would lend more credence to my interpretation, the sole difference being that they would be easily distinguishable from wheat. very early in the life cycle.

If a "tare" was anything other than Darnell grass, the instruction to let it grow would be completely nonsensical to the farmers in the audience. (Even it they ARE Darnell weed, this instruction is obviously a bad idea) Somebody, somewhere, said "the Lord helps those who help themselves." Since we know we have to weed our own garden, maybe we are supposed to remove those sons of the Devil ourselves, as well. Sometimes it will be easy to tell who they are, and sometimes it will be more difficult. In this last case, if you wait just a little while, it will become more obvious over time.

Now, as for Jesus telling a story using words the audience would understand, he then explains what it supposedly means (which he does NOT do - he just clarifies the metaphor) using as his explanation the very words and terms that the audience supposedly would not understand. Why not just do that in the first place, unless there was some significant meaning in the farming portion?

Here is something that obviously needs done. Are you going to do it yourself, or wait for God to do it for you? If you wait for God to do it, that will be the end of the world. Me, I'd get right to work.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 01:08 AM

Quote:

Here is something that obviously needs done. Are you going to do it yourself, or wait for God to do it for you? If you wait for God to do it, that will be the end of the world. Me, I'd get right to work.

I take it that the thing that needs to get done is removing the tares. So youre saying we shouldnt wait for God to remove the tares spoken of in this parable, we should? This is just so wrong and illogical on so many levels. Nelson, think with me for a minute. Read the parable again, then read Jesus' interpretation. Then answer these questions for yourself.

1. Who is the sower?
2. What is the field?
3. Who sowed the tares?
4. What does the wheat represent?
5. What do the tares represent?
6. Who are the servants?
7. What is the harvest?
8. Who are the reapers?

Now for the answers. This is not my interpretation, but the interpretation Jesus gave later in the chapter. ( Matthew 13:

1. The sower is the Son of Man. ( Matthew 13:37) Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man throughout the New Testament. Jesus is the sower and the field belongs to Him. So are you going to go into another mans, ( Jesus) field and start weeding it for Him? Even when He specifically said not to? Jesus is the sower. I wouldnt mess with His field if I were you.

2. The field is the world. ( Matthew 13:38) Not the crops of the people he was talking to, but the people of the world. See Jesus' interpretation of the wheat and tares.

3. The one who sowed the tares is the devil. ( Matthew 13:39)

4. The good seeds that produced wheat are the children of the kingdom. Matthew 13:38.

5. The bad seeds, ( tares), are the people of the evil one, ( satan ) ( Matthew 13:38). So how do you propose to remove them, Nelson? Dont tell me, "well that's what this and that Christian tried to do", I already know that. The people who called themselves Christians and went against their Masters explicit command will answer to Him. Dont worry so much about what other people did. Theyre not Jesus. Christianity is faith in Christ, not faith in religious leaders.

6. The Harvest is the end of the world. ( Matthew 13:39) Nobody is going to be very hungry at the end of the world. Believers won't be hungry because the Bible says they will never hunger and thirst again, and I suspect that unbelievers will probably lose their appetite when they have to give an account of their lives to Jesus.

7. It is uncertain who the servants are, because Jesus did not give us the answer. Therefore I will not speculate at this point.

8. The reapers are the angels.

Now that we know what each symbol in the parable means, ( by Jesus own interpretation, not our own), lets put it all together.

Jesus is the sower. The field belongs to Him and the wheat belongs to Him. Jesus is not hungry. Jesus does not have to worry about starving. Jesus just wants to protect His precious wheat, which are His children. Jesus is willing to put up with the tares, because He doesnt want to lose even one of His precious ones.

Secondly, Do you realize what the separation of the wheat and tares involves? When the time comes to separate them, Jesus will send His Holy Angels to remove the tares, ( unbelievers) and cast them into eternal fire. Why doesnt God do this now, you ask?!! You say it's a bad idea to wait till harvest to separate the tares from the wheat????!!!!! Well thank God He is merciful enough to hold off from removing the tares. Why doesnt God remove them now? Because of His mercy. By the way, God has plenty of time, He is not pressured by time constraints or worries about not having enough food to eat.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 03:12 AM

Here's another parable about the end of the age that is set to music. It's called "The sheep and the goats" by Keith Green. The message is extremely powerful, and the parable shows what true Christianity is all about.
The words come right out of the Bible, and it has touching images with it.

http://youtu.be/Exr3GK_8kbU

Here's a song by the same artist that is a clarion call to true believers of what Jesus wants them to do between now and the end of the age. God doesnt want us to uproot or destroy anyone, He wants us to wake up and reach out in love.

http://youtu.be/r4aZV-3ZQRs

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 01:09 PM

The second part of the parable is fairly clear, and I have no problem with what it says. No real need to repeat it again.

It is the "context" which I have problems with. God starts out by telling his farmers how to tend their fields, and does so by giving astonishingly bad advice. Yes, it is a BAD IDEA to wait until the harvest to remove the weeds. The original, supposedly easy to understand part of the parable, would represent to an audience of that time something that no one with any sense at all would do.

The central concept joining the two different parts of the parable is "wait and do it later". In the first part, this is just silly, counter-productive, stupid. Thus comes my idea that the story is telling people to do their own culling of both the field and the population.

Posted By: DCDAWGFAN Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 01:45 PM

Quote:

In reply to DCDAWG's post about religion and politics being similarly unargueable, I disagree. IMO politicians, and religious leaders, are able to do what they do because too many of the people to whom they are speaking are ignorant of the facts.

This ignorance manifests itself not only as people not knowing what the actual facts really are, but also as people thinking that certain things are indeed factual when they are not.

Back up. At no point did I say they are unarguable. What I said was that you don't win big picture debates by arguing infinitesimal details. I'm not going to lead anybody to the Lord by debating "tares" and Darnell weeds with them and in the end, that is my calling as a Christian, to lead people to Jesus, not to convince them of the accuracy of an individual parable...... that was my point.. just like nobody is going to sell me on government run healthcare by breaking down the cost of Tylenol at the hospital.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 02:26 PM

Quote:

God starts out by telling his farmers how to tend their fields, and does so by giving astonishingly bad advice. Yes, it is a BAD IDEA to wait until the harvest to remove the weeds. The original, supposedly easy to understand part of the parable, would represent to an audience of that time something that no one with any sense at all would do.

First of all, the parable is not Jesus telling people what they should do with their fields, He is telling them what He Himself does with His fields. This is in no way a lesson on how to farm. Now regarding your statement that the explanation of what Jesus is doing with His fields would make no sense to His audience, let me just say that this is not the first time God has been described as doing something that would make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to us as humans.

John 3:16- For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now John 3:16 is not a parable, it's exactly what happened, but remember the parable of the sower is a story that represents what God is doing and will do, ( that is let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest).
Which is more illogical and contrary to human reason, waiting to remove tares from wheat or letting your only son die in the place of a bunch of lawbreakers? Do you have a child? If I was found guilty of murder, would you allow you child to die in my place? Is John 3:16 teaching that we should let all the death row inmates to go free and put our children there in their place? The parable of the sower is not talking about how humans should cultivate their crops any more than John 3:16 is talking about how we should treat our children.

If everything you're saying is true, then when His disciples heard His explanation of the parable, they probably would have said " Gods mercy is so great, and His ways are so much different than ours. The rest of the people, ( the unbelievers) went away scratching their heads not able to make sense of it. This actually was the intent of the parables.

Matthew 13:10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’[a]
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear

God's ways are higher than our ways...(Isaiah 55:9)

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 02:50 PM

So, when all the talking heads are saying that ObamaCare is a wonderful thing, did you take that statement as true without question, or did you say to yourself "this guy might be nothing more than a glorified used-car salesman" and actually dig into some first-hand information for yourself?

Did you look at the actual words and numbers and find at least a few that seem to indicate, to you, something different than what the "experts" say? The "big picture" is made up from many small details.

It is interesting that Governments often use obscure, complex, and convoluted language, and seem able to explain how the same document can carry different meanings at different times. They seem able to make it say whatever they want it to say.

Posted By: DCDAWGFAN Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 03:19 PM

Nelson I'm not saying that details are a bad thing or that they should be ignored. I'm saying that I'm not going to talk somebody who is a liberal into being a conservative by debating a minescule detail of a healthcare bill.. any more than I'm going to talk a non-believer or agnostic into following Jesus by proving what tare is...

The parable clearly states that if you try to pull up the weeds before harvesting that you run the risk of having the good crops come up with it and being ruined. Your opinion is that that is agriculturally not the best way to farm... I will just concede that maybe you know more about what it took to farm in 30 AD than I do and leave it at that... Doesn't change the fact that Jesus loves you and He is happy you are taking an interest in His parable.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 03:24 PM

So, you're gonna fall back on "the Lord works in mysterious ways", eh?

Well, if we can't figure out what he's doing and what he wants, then what good is this book, anyway?

Why is it that Darnell weed has been "chosen" as the most logical candidate for "tares"? You are saying that the first part of the parable does not NEED to make any sense. Why not Daffodils, then? Somebody, apparently, saw the need to make this part somewhat more sensible. That unknown person or persons may have seen this story in the same way that I do, and a decision was made to paint or color this story in a different direction.

The insertion of Darnell weed into the parable is not the work of God, but of Man.

Never mentioning the meaning of a back-handed slap to the face is a CHANGE to the original story. Again, the work of Man, not of God.

The original intent of these lessons may have been altered, by the hand of Man.

I get from these two stories "Do What Needs To Be Done", and "Stand Up For Yourself". Important concepts. Useful ideas for living. Conducive to Survival.

"God will take care of the Bad Guys" and "Be Non-Violent" may be nice concepts, and probably something that Governments and other people who control printing presses would like to advocate, but not really very helpful for Bronze Age peasants.

In 2,000 years and multiple translations, edits, and re-writes, plus being carried orally for hundreds of years, changes to the language over time, it is IMO Not Possible that much of the original text has not been altered. Guess Who?

Also, many generations of parents have sent their children to die in foreign countries (and this one, for that matter) for hard-to-understand reasons.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 03:50 PM

The "risk" in removing Darnell grass from wheat is if you act to soon, or too rashly. It requires some careful consideration to tell the good from the bad.

It took only brief research to reveal that this is considered a pest plant and it is understood that there is a need to remove it as soon as possible to have a decent harvest.

I believe the first part of the parable is there for a reason, that it has meaning it is intended to carry. Either that, or God needs a better ghostwriter.

Most Conservatives will admit that it is possilbe for a Liberal to have a good idea, and the other way around. Then there are some that just won't, as they believe that They and ONLY They have the right answers.

IMO the way to disprove that incorrect philosophy is to find a particular point, perhaps a detail, and hammer home the Possibility that in this specific case, they Could be wrong. Then you find another one.

What you end up with is a person who digs for more accurate answers, who seeks to find additional information, rather than just blindly accepting what they are told.

Question Authority.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 08:24 PM

This will be my last response. Your responses are very similar in nature to the questions/objections of the following biblical people.

John 2:18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body

John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. 4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

John 4:10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them...
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Jesus often spoke in metaphor.

Posted By: msmouse05 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 08:38 PM

Let me save everyone some time, there is no end of the world because there is no god. The Earth will be destroyed in about 4-5 billions years when the sun goes Nova and if humans are still around we won't be restricted to this rock, at least I'd hope not.

Posted By: no_logo_required Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 08:55 PM

Quote:

there is no god.

ok, now prove it

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/27/11 09:26 PM

Quote:

There is no God

Thank you for posting. It's not often that one gets to read a message from an Omniscient, ( all knowing, all seeing) human.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/28/11 04:47 PM

Quote:

In 2,000 years and multiple translations, edits, and re-writes, plus being carried orally for hundreds of years, changes to the language over time, it is IMO Not Possible that much of the original text has not been altered. Guess Who?

Absolute fallacy!! I know I said I wouldnt reply anymore, but I could not let this bald-faced lie stand unchallenged. I'm not saying your lying, maybe you've been lied to. Please read the following article, particularly the sections about the New Testament manuscripts, the Dead Sea scrolls, and the most amazing of all, the testimony of the early Church Fathers, ( not merely that they said the Bible was the Word of God, but they quoted it verbatim, and their quotes match the texts that we have in our modern Bibles. Their writings are1,600-1800 years old, some as early as the early second century AD, less than 100 years after Jesus Crucifiction, and only a few decades after the last book of the Bible was written. Here are a few portions of the article I found relevant to your fallacious argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. ' Over the centuries textual critics have gathered together existing manuscript copies of the Bible, and spent years examining them, and comparing them with one another. And they don't just have a dozen or two, or even a few hundred manuscript copies, they have thousands! There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, dating as far back as the first century A.D. And there are dozens of thousands of Old Testament manuscripts, dating as far back as the third century B.C. You can see them for yourself at places like the British Museum, the Cambridge University Library, the Smithsonian Institute, Oxford University, the Israel Museum, the National Library at Paris, etc. '

2. ...'The greatest manuscript discovery ever happened in March, 1947, when a young Arab boy (Muhammad adh-Dhib) was pursuing a lost goat in the caves at Qumran, 7.5 miles south of Jericho and a mile west of the Dead Sea. In one of the caves he discovered some jars containing several leather scrolls. Between that time in 1947 and 1956, eleven more caves were discovered that contained hundreds of more Old Testament manuscripts representing every book of the Old Testament except Esther. These manuscripts were handwritten copies of the Old Testament Bible that had been penned as far back as the third century B.C.

It was in those caves that the Essenes, a Jewish religious sect from the time of Christ, had housed their library. Altogether six hundred manuscripts were found. These manuscripts are called "The Dead Sea Scrolls." These scrolls have helped verify that the Bible was accurately transmitted (copied) down through the centuries...'

3. "... church fathers, we are referring to those leaders in the church, of the first three centuries A.D. following the original disciples. A few examples would be men like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Eusebius.

These men, in their writings and correspondence with other believers and churches, quoted New Testament Scripture over and over again. Justin Martyr quoted the gospels 268 times in his writings. Clement of Alexandria, quoted the gospels 1,017 times.Tertullian, quoted the gospels 3,822 times. If you add up these quotes and the others like them, the church fathers quoted the gospels alone an amazing 19,368 times! [3] In fact, the early church fathers quote the New Testament scriptures more than 86,000 times.

There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single manuscript copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct 99.86% of the New Testament. There were only eleven verses that the church fathers apparently never cited in their writings. "

4. "Lectionaries were church-service books that contained selected scripture quotations that were used in the early centuries of Christianity. And several thousand of these have been found, again verifying that the text of Bible has not undergone corruption."

5.'One of the more popular writing materials for the poor were broken pieces of pottery, known as ostraca. [4] Today, archaeologists have discovered and documented more than sixteen hundred broken pieces of Greek pottery that contain numerous quotations of scripture on them.They too have helped establish the case for the reliability of the Biblical text. '

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=43

By the way, you said it didnt make sense for the sower not to remove the tares right away. My questions are what is the best method for removing tares, did farmers have that technology available in the First Century AD, and if not, what would be your recommendation to a first century farmer on how to remove tares from his wheatfield? Please enlighten me. Nevertheless, even if it was possible or even simple to do in the first century, it still doesnt change the fact that it is a parable, and you must follow the literary rules for interpreting a parable. Who made these rules you say? The same people that say that when someone says"Break a leg" or "Go fly a kite", or drop dead" they are usually not interpreted literally or strictly obeyed. Usually, ( except maybe fly a kite, it is used literally and figuratively) they are figures of speech, non literal ways of communicaition. Why don't you just tell me the Bible is not true because Jesus taught about wolves sewing sheepskins together and wearing them to disguise themselves? Does the literal interpretation of that make sense? Of course not, but the figurative interpretation does.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/28/11 07:20 PM

Apparently you do not understand the difference between something stated as opinion and something stated as fact. "apparently" is the wrong word, it is clear and obvious.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT a library. This was NOT a storage area for documents that were accessed on a regular basis, it was a long-term archive.

Now, your story disagrees with much of what I have read and seen, in that there were significant differences between the scrolls and today's documents. Entire books in the scrolls that are not recorded today, differences in wording, etc.

Now, to remove weeds from a garden has not changed a whole lot in 2,000 years. A sharp blade, such as a scythe or sicle, is all that is required. Now, IF the weeds in question are in fact Darnell grass, a plant which has been specifically picked for NO OTHER REASON than to make the first part of the parable at least somewhat more sensible, and which choice I specifically questioned and received no response at all, you would wait until the heads of "wheat" begin to appear, at which point the difference is easily distinguishable, both by color and angle, then take a sharp blade and cut the plant off at the base. If you allow the weed to grow to maturity, much nutrients will be stolen from the wheat by the weed, and the harvest and thus available food will be greatly reduced.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/29/11 12:21 AM

Quote:

Apparently you do not understand the difference between something stated as opinion and something stated as fact. "apparently" is the wrong word, it is clear and obvious.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT a library. This was NOT a storage area for documents that were accessed on a regular basis, it was a long-term archive.

Now, your story disagrees with much of what I have read and seen, in that there were significant differences between the scrolls and today's documents. Entire books in the scrolls that are not recorded today, differences in wording, etc.

Now, to remove weeds from a garden has not changed a whole lot in 2,000 years. A sharp blade, such as a scythe or sicle, is all that is required. Now, IF the weeds in question are in fact Darnell grass, a plant which has been specifically picked for NO OTHER REASON than to make the first part of the parable at least somewhat more sensible, and which choice I specifically questioned and received no response at all, you would wait until the heads of "wheat" begin to appear, at which point the difference is easily distinguishable, both by color and angle, then take a sharp blade and cut the plant off at the base. If you allow the weed to grow to maturity, much nutrients will be stolen from the wheat by the weed, and the harvest and thus available food will be greatly reduced.

Perhaps the original hearers would have been stunned to hear that the sower chose not to remove the tares immedietely, but when they realized that the tares represented individual Christians they understood. Question: In the removal of tares from a wheatfield using a blade or a scythe is it possible or likely that some of the wheat would be lost, through trampling or uprooting?
What if God treasures His wheat, ( individual believers), so much that He is more willing to put up with the tares than to lose even one of His precious wheat. If God let the church go around weeding out His field, tremendous damage would be done. In fact, people in the church have tried it with terrible results

Therefore, the original story may have confused His hearers, but the explanation would clear up their confusion if they had spiritual discernment. Jesus' parables were meant to be confusing and paradoxical to those without spiritual discernment, read Matthew 13.

Quote:

Now, your story disagrees with much of what I have read and seen, in that there were significant differences between the scrolls and today's documents. Entire books in the scrolls that are not recorded today, differences in wording, etc.

Of course there were documents in the dead sea scrolls that are not recorded today; No one said all the dead sea scrolls were recordings or copies of the Bible, only that they contain portions of the Bible. Regarding differences between the passages of the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, please provide some examples with links or citations of where you are getting your information. You notice I am posting links, not just pulling stuff out of my head. Please document your claims.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/29/11 01:32 AM

I thought that the "tares" represented Sons of the Devil. Which is it, sons of the devil or individual christians? Have the words in the book changed, or did you temporarily misplace your spiritual discernment?

Apparently, just about every organized christian religion has lost their spiritual discernment en masse at one time or another, because they sure as hell have been active in removing the sons of the devil on their own. Holding that book in their hands and certain they were obeying the word of God, every time. Over, and over, and over again. Murderous, fanatical butchers. Remember those pitchforks and torches? All of that "precious wheat" didn't get very much attention, DID IT? "mysterious ways" might answer this for you, but it just doesn't cut it for me. I got two words for the entity that set this in motion and they ain't "Happy Birthday".

"spiritual discernment" sounds very much like the ability to Bovine Excrement convincingly.

As for the harvesting, I suppose some wheat might be lost when cutting weeds, but less than what is lost by leaving the weeds there. That's why they cut the weeds out, over 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 100 years ago, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I suppose there might be some farmers that believed that contemplating the end of the world would be more important than properly tending their fields, but most of them starved to death a long time ago.

I'll repeat a specific question. WHY is Darnell grass the chosen meaning for "tares", since the first part of the parable is not important and does not need to make sense?

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/29/11 01:57 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I thought that the "tares" represented Sons of the Devil. Which is it, sons of the devil or individual christians? Have the words in the book changed, or did you temporarily misplace your spiritual discernment?

Pardon me, I meant to say the "wheat" represented the Children of the kingdom, ie individual Christians. "Tares" was a typo.

Quote:

Apparently, just about every organized christian religion has lost their spiritual discernment en masse at one time or another, because they sure as hell have been active in removing the sons of the devil on their own

Please advise when the following Christian movements did the things you describe. Baptists, Methodists, Salvation Army, Church of the Nazarene, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, Anabaptists, Quakers, Puritans, the early church before Constantine, Pentecostals,

Quote:

Holding that book in their hands and certain they were obeying the word of God, every time. Over, and over, and over again. Murderous, fanatical butchers. Remember those pitchforks and torches?

Please list every Christian movement that you know of that has been guilty of these atrocities. Let's compare them with the number of Christian movements that have existed in the history of the church, and see if you are describing the majority, or the fringe fanatical minority. Other then that, most of the burnings were performed by the Roman Catholic church which was just as much political at that time as it was religious. Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this earth, but they didnt understand that.

Plus, how do you know these butchers with pitchforks and torches werent the "tares" that satan planted. God doesnt want us, ( the wheat), uprooting them, because our war is not a physical war of weapons, our war is a spiritual war of words and principles.

Quote:

All of that "precious wheat" didn't get very much attention, DID IT? "mysterious ways" might answer this for you, but it just doesn't cut it for me. I got two words for the entity that set this in motion and they ain't "Happy Birthday".

The wheat did get plenty of attention, because the same butchers you describe who killed unbelievers were killing the wheat at the same time. Professed Christians killed other Christians in the name of God over doctrinal disputes. These murderers were of the tares. How do I know? Because Jesus said, " By their fruit you will know them." Don't you remember that the tares grow up among the wheat? Figure it out, it's not that complicated

Quote:

As for the harvesting, I suppose some wheat might be lost when cutting weeds, but less than what is lost by leaving the weeds there. That's why they cut the weeds out, over 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 100 years ago, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I suppose there might be some farmers that believed that contemplating the end of the world would be more important than properly tending their fields, but most of them starved to death a long time ago.

Your argument doesnt even make sense because it doesnt even take into account what Jesus meant, and Jesus very clearly stated what He meant.

I'll repeat a specific question. WHY is Darnell grass the chosen meaning for "tares", since the first part of the parable is not important and does not need to make sense?

Who cares? It doesnt change the meaning of the parable. Put any weed in there you like, and the parable still means the same thing. You can put daffodils in there if you want, even though they are not a weed. Put whatever you like. The parable still will mean the same thing. Remember, the meaning of a parable is not found in the details but in the overarching principle that the parable is teaching.

I will not argue with you any more, but please send the Dead Sea discrepancies if you like. I am interested in seeing them

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/29/11 02:29 AM

That's not a typo. A freudian slip, maybe, but not a typo.

I don't track all the various sects and cults but I am pretty sure the Puritans did their share of Witch Burning.

The wheat got plenty of attention from murderous butchers? Well damn, that sure makes me want to have god watching over me. You claim these were sons of the Devil. Nice to have a convenient scapegoat, isn't it. The only thing we know as a fact is that they were members of a christian religion. As for the "fringe minority" claim, would that include several Popes and virtually the entire Catholic church? No, sir, the "fringe minority" is those who were NOT murderous butchers.

My "argument that doesn't make sense" was a simple, clear, logical, factual answer to YOUR QUESTION. If you didn't want the answer, WTF did you ask the question? Do you have ears but will not hear?

The folks who chose Darnell grass were folks just like you. For some reason, they did not choose daffodils. SOMEBODY saw a need to change the story, obviously to attempt to make more sense out of it. That would indicate that somebody, and probably a whole bunch of folks, saw the exact same problem that I did.

Just for comparitive purposes and my own curiousity, you have never had any Jesuit training, have you?

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/29/11 06:13 AM

Quote:

I don't track all the various sects and cults but I am pretty sure the Puritans did their share of Witch Burning.

The wheat got plenty of attention from murderous butchers? Well damn, that sure makes me want to have god watching over me. You claim these were sons of the Devil. Nice to have a convenient scapegoat, isn't it. The only thing we know as a fact is that they were members of a christian religion. As for the "fringe minority" claim, would that include several Popes and virtually the entire Catholic church? No, sir, the "fringe minority" is those who were NOT murderous butchers.

My "argument that doesn't make sense" was a simple, clear, logical, factual answer to YOUR QUESTION. If you didn't want the answer, WTF did you ask the question? Do you have ears but will not hear?

The folks who chose Darnell grass were folks just like you. For some reason, they did not choose daffodils. SOMEBODY saw a need to change the story, obviously to attempt to make more sense out of it. That would indicate that somebody, and probably a whole bunch of folks, saw the exact same problem that I did.

Just for comparitive purposes and my own curiousity, you have never had any Jesuit training, have you?

..

1. So you have the puritans and the Catholic Church when it was the state religion of the Roman Empire. What other Christian movements killed unbelievers or those who disagreed with them? I know there are more, and I know who they are, I just want to see if you know who they are. How many members of the early church, ( before Roman Catholicism became the state religion), killed dissenters? How many Protestants and Evangelical movements killed in the name of God? Did the apostles kill anyone? How about Polycarp, Tertillian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, or Ignatius? When did the phenomenom of Christians killing unbelievers, heretics, and dissenters begin, and who were they? You don't have to answer all these questions, just think about it.

2/ Yes, God allows Christians to get martyred. It's been happening since the beginning of time. It's one of the most obvious things you see when you read the Bible. Guess what? The more Christianity gets attacked the stronger it gets. One of the reasons the church is so complacent here in America is because it has it so easy. Also, many pagans and unbelievers in the Roman Empire became Christians when they saw the courage and the faith of the martyrs. And I'm not talking about martyrs that went out killing innocents, so don't even bother comparing them. By the way, there have been far more Christians killed by unbelievers than vica versa. Not saying that excuses the pseudo Christian killers, just saying.

2. A scapegoat is someone who takes the blame for what someone else did. How is my calling people who killed in the name of God tares making them scapegoats? Are you saying that they are taking the blame for my crimes? Maybe their taking the blame for the Anabaptists or the Mennonites? When a person is accused of doing something they actually did, theyre not a scapegoat.

3. I mentioned that the Roman Catholic Church was the ones who were mainly involved in the massacres. I also mentioned that the Roman Catholic Empire was just as much, if not moreso, a political machine as it was a religious institution. Guess what? I'm not Roman Catholic, neither was Jesus, or the apostles, or the earliest church Fathers, neither is the whole protestant movement. The original church was simply the "Catholic", ( or universal Church" ), but when they made it the state religion and turned it into politics, things went awry. Jus because some of the popes and Catholic leaders abused their power, doesnt mean that all Christianity is rotten, just like the fact that Communist atheists who killed millions upon millions of Christians does not make all atheists bloodthirsty despots.

Guess what? I, ( as well as the vast majority of Christians), believe in freedom of religious expression, as well as the separation of church and state, although I do think it is Ok and desirable for Christians to run for public office that is not a breach of the separation of church and state principle.)

When did I ask you what type of weeds the tares were? I was merely speculating on what they might have been.

I think it's obvious I'm not a Jesuit. Just a plain old guy who reads the Bible.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/29/11 03:05 PM

Quote:

The wheat got plenty of attention from murderous butchers? Well damn, that sure makes me want to have god watching over me

Of course people have lost their lives for their faith in Christ. Does this mean that God is not watching over them? Certainly not, for though they lost life and limb, their eternal soul was untouched. Some chose to forfeit their temporal life, ( which is merely a passing cloud or a vapor), because they considered their eternal destiny much more important, and they received a victors crown. Death for a christian is not something to be feared, but merely an entrance into their reward. God watches over us by preserving our inward, eternal soul for all eternity, and though our physical bodies may be broken, they will rise again just as Christ arose.

"You threaten me with fire, which burns for an hour, and is soon extinguished; but the fire of the future judgment, and of eternal punishment reserved for the ungodly, you are ignorant of. But why do you delay? Do whatever you please." Polycarp

Quote:

You claim these were sons of the Devil. Nice to have a convenient scapegoat, isn't it.

A scapegoat is someone who is blamed or punished for someone elses crimes. How does my statement that murderers are tares constitute making them scapegoats? I am refuting their actions, not laying the blame of someone elses actions at their feet. If anything, you are scapegoating the vast majority of Christians who have never killed in God's name by attributing the murders commited by fanatics to all believers.

Quote:

The only thing we know as a fact is that they were members of a christian religion. As for the "fringe minority" claim, would that include several Popes and virtually the entire Catholic church? No, sir, the "fringe minority" is those who were NOT murderous butchers

.

So virtually the entire Catholic church is guilt of murder in the name of God? If that's the case, there are millions upon millions of catholics running around today that should be in prison for murder. True the Catholic Church has a history of killing dissenters, but to say virtually the whole church has been guilty is a remarkable statement. You sure do paint with a broad brush.

Also, just because one professed to be a Christian does not make them a Christian. Doesnt the parable of the wheat and tares demonstrate this? The only thing you have demonstrated is that there are many who claim to be Christians that deny Christ with their actions. Thanks for telling me the obvious. Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, the church fathers already told us this was going to happen. So how exactly do your statements refute true Christianity?

Quote:

My "argument that doesn't make sense" was a simple, clear, logical, factual answer to YOUR QUESTION. If you didn't want the answer, WTF did you ask the question? Do you have ears but will not hear?

What question are you referring to?

Quote:

Just for comparitive purposes and my own curiousity, you have never had any Jesuit training, have you?

No, why do you ask?
.

Quote:

The folks who chose Darnell grass were folks just like you. For some reason, they did not choose daffodils. .

Google the word "zizanion". No one, including me, said that this means "darnel", it was merely said that it may be darnel. You are confusing fact with opinion.

Quote:

SOMEBODY saw a need to change the story, obviously to attempt to make more sense out of it. That would indicate that somebody, and probably a whole bunch of folks, saw the exact same problem that I did

What problem are you referring to? The problem that the sower waited until the harvest to pull the tares? Even if what you are saying about agriculture is true, the only thing your supposed problem demonstrates is that things in the world of spiritual reality are different from things in the world of physical reality. Like the fact that a man can be born again spiritually, but not physically, ( unless you believe in reincarnation, which I don't.), or the fact that there is no water in the physical world that you can drink that will take away your thirst forever, but there is a spiritual water that will take away your spiritual thirst forever,etc.

If God doesnt want to pull the tares out before the harvest, what is that to you? It isnt your field, is it?

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/30/11 01:38 AM

Nelson, I just wanted to add this as an addendum to my last two posts, then remove myself from this discussion. I just want to let you know that Jesus loves you and died for you. I know I am guilty of debating you, but not because I am trying to win a debate, or care if you win the debate, it's just that people tend to reject Christ due to what they think are errors in the transation of the Bible, or because of the inconsistancy of some who have called themselves Christians. I wanted to let you know that the Bible is a reliable book,,and that the actions of some who call themselves Christians which are unchristian have no bearing on who Christ is. Jesus Christ is the Faithful and True, and His Words are life. Please don't look at the actions of fallible men, look to the Son of God. He never killed or persecuted, yet He suffered and died for us.

Posted By: msmouse05 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/31/11 03:21 AM

Quote:

ok, now prove it

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you can prove to me that all other gods like Thor, Zeus and Allah don't exist in a way that I couldn't use to disprove your god exists then I'll pay attention.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/31/11 01:45 PM

So you say there is no evidence for the existence of God? I would agree with those who say that there is no way to scientifically prove that God exists, but there is plenty of evidence in the physical universe that there is a Creator.

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=0

Show me the proof that life came into existence out of non-life, that the universe sprang out of nothing without a creator, and that all life forms evolved from a common ancestor. Show me the evidence for the assumption that man evolved from the ape. The Nebraska man? The piltdown man?

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/31/11 03:40 PM

Fullfilled prophecies. The Bible has many examples of fullfilled prophecies, whereas Mythology has none, and as far as I know the Koran has no examples of prophecy being clearly fullilled. If you can provide me with examples of the clear fulfillment of prophecies from Mythology or Islam, I will provide you with numerous clear and unmistakable prophecies from the Bible that were remarkably fulfilled. Remember, the meaning of the prophecies must be clear, not ambiguous.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/31/11 07:37 PM

Quote:

then take a sharp blade and cut the plant off at the base. If you allow the weed to grow to maturity, much nutrients will be stolen from the wheat by the weed, and the harvest and thus available food will be greatly reduced.

So just for clarification, you just cut the tares off at the base, and leave the roots there? Wouldnt the fact that the roots remain still cause nutrients to be lost? What about when they grow back? Correct me if I'm wrong, again I'm no farmer, but it doesnt seem to me just cutting off the tares at the base would solve the problem. I fully realize that I may be wrong, as this is not an area that I have a lot of knowledge in. Maybe you or someone else can enlighten me.

Also, you said the methods of weeding a "garden" havent changed. The sower planted the seeds in a wheatfield, not a garden, and the methods of weeding wheatfields have changed with the invention of herbicides, at least that's an option that I don't think a first century farmer would have had available to him. Again, I could be wrong.

Not trying to argue, just trying to answer your objection.

Posted By: msmouse05 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 05/31/11 09:29 PM

What are the fulfilled prophecies you mentioned?

Just because we cannot yet explain some of the mysteries of the universe does not mean we have to jump to the conclusion that a magician did it.

As for the link you provided it says that the since the universe exists and we know something cannot come from nothing then it must have a creator. Then it goes on to say God doesn't need a creator because he is eternal. It is a contradiction to the first part of the argument. By stating god does not have a creator and he does not need one then it is an exception to the first statement that something cannot come from nothing. And if there are exceptions to the argument then it is valid that the universe is an exception itself. There is something instead of nothing, we do not know why and will never know why, there just is.

Then it talks about the universe and how it appears to have been designed and how everything is perfect for the life. But life evolved around it, it was here first. So of course everything appears perfect, its all we know and how we observe it. Everything seems to have order because we can understand it.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/01/11 12:35 AM

Messiah to be a descendant of Abraham- Genesis 12:1-3

Messiah to be descended from the tribe of Judah- (Gen. 49:10)

Messiah to be a descendant of David- Jeremiah 23:5-6

Jesus to be born in Bethlehem- "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

Jesus hand and feet pierced-Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. Psalm 22:16

Messiah will be cut off, ( killed), after the rebuilding of Jerusalem and before the destruction of the second temple. Daniel 9:25-26- Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decreef to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,g the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.h The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary

Messiah to be punished and pierced- Isaiah 53: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;

Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.

Isaiah 53:3 said that Messiah would be despised and rejected by the majority of His own people, yet many gentiles, ( non jews ) would believe.

Jesus predicted that the Jews would be scattered all over the world, and that Jerusalem would be trampled by the Gentiles, ( non-Jews), but only for a limited time, ( time of the Gentiles). Luke 21:24-

Christianity, ( faith in Messiah) would grow until there would be Christians all over the world. ( Isaiah 49:6)

Quote:

As for the link you provided it says that the since the universe exists and we know something cannot come from nothing then it must have a creator. Then it goes on to say God doesn't need a creator because he is eternal. It is a contradiction to the first part of the argument. By stating god does not have a creator and he does not need one then it is an exception to the first statement that something cannot come from nothing. And if there are exceptions to the argument then it is valid that the universe is an exception itself. There is something instead of nothing, we do not know why and will never know why, there just is.

The problem with your argument is that everything that we know and observe is subject to the laws of cause and effect, time, and space. I think it has pretty well been confirmed that the universe had a beginning, and that it was caused b by something, and it is no longer believed to be infinite. The very definition of God is one who is eternal ( not limited by time), omnipresent( not limited by space), and self existent ( not subject to cause and effect). The Bible affirms God to be all of these, so while we cannot scientifically prove that God exists, we do know that if the God of the Bible does exist He transcends time, space, and causation.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j12_1/j12_1_20-22.pdf

I understand if you say that there is some evidence of evolution, (change over time),within a species, but do you actually believe that all life evolved from one common ancestor? Have we ever observed one species evolving into another. If so, please elaborate? If not, why do so many people accept these as scientific facts? Did you know that Darwin didnt have any degree in science, he had a B.A in Theology. Most church pastors have more education than this.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218209/k.1176/The_Five_Crises_in_Evolutionary_Theory.htm

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/01/11 03:01 AM

I forgot to put the verse that shows the gentiles putting their faith in the Christ, it is Isaiah 11:10.

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/01/11 04:22 AM

Well this is something ... I thought you said that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive and both have their own pervue? I see your following comments as flying in the face of your previous comments.

Quote:

I understand if you say that there is some evidence of evolution, (change over time),within a species,

To say there is some, is an understatement. There are literally 10's of thousands of experiments and studies ranging from math to neuroscience that back up the idea that evolution leading to speciation has occurred in the past as it occurs now.

Quote:

but do you actually believe that all life evolved from one common ancestor?

Yes. Let me ask you a question rather than me rambling on and on about it. Why don't you believe life originated from a common ancestor?

Quote:

Have we ever observed one species evolving into another. If so, please elaborate? If not, why do so many people accept these as scientific facts?

Yes. We've seen it posthoc, in the fossil record with many animals like whales, sea lions, bats, birds, etc. I guess you have to buy into an earth that is billions of years old to believe this one. Do you?

How about some current speciation events? Here's one where lizards have changed their diet from strict carnivores to mostly herbivores, which is a huge shift in gut metabolism and processing. We've also created many reproductively isolated strains of fruit fly in labs that never interbreed. The hawthorne fly, ring species like ensantina salamanders in california, many types of bacteria and tons of plant life, just to name a few more. These are all instances where organisms were and still are genetically isolated from a sister group that end up with a different genetic code, or different behavior, etc. This is speciation.

Quote:

Did you know that Darwin didnt have any degree in science, he had a B.A in Theology. Most church pastors have more education than this.

That was literally 150 years ago when the majority of people doing science didn't have any degrees. And come on LA, youre better than stooping to character assassination to prove a point, right? Regardless, it doesn't matter. Creationist arguments like this are interesting because they think that if they can discredit the man, they can discredit the science. They also think that scientists hold him in some god-like regard. The fact is that he's not, and scientists do not. The guy bought into things like homeopathy and hydrology. He was hardly a scientific role model. Also, he was wrong in some of his hypotheses that lie outside of natural selection. It wasn't until the mid 1900's that the Modern Synthesis of Evolution was formed out of Mendel's genetics (he was a monk, and didn't have a science degree either, that doesn't mean he wasn't right), modern ecology, and darwin's natural selection. There need to be 4 things for evolution by way of natural selection to occur.1.) You need a trait 2.) that trait must confer an increase in the ability of an organism to survive 3.) the trait must be heritable 4.) long amounts of time. Mendel was the first to coin the term "gene" and show that these genes confer traits even though he had no idea what exactly a gene was composed of. And finally ecology, which studies interactions of organisms within an ecosystem and was the birthplace of both of these hypotheses, and later, scientific theories. So while Darwin is credited with natural selection, he's not credited with the totality of our current understanding of evolution.

That being said, Darwin's hypothesis has also stood up to 150 years worth of observation and testing in geology, genetics, development, molecular, ecological, neural, physiological, etc. sciences. And has shown to have a predictive power too. For example, since natural selection is a massively multi-linear process (ie it makes a tree, with many branches), we wouldn't expect to find rabbits before mammals, or birds before dinosaurs in the fossil record. If we did, it would invalidate evolution as we know it. One of the most recent examples was about five or six years back when a man was in a race with another lab, searching for an early tetrapod ancestor that was mostly water bound, but could go on land for short distances. Due to our current fossil record he made an educated guess that they would be in between the emergence of lobe-finned fish and early amphibians, a time called the Devonian. He went to a geologist, asking for any records of exposed rock formations dated to that time period. The geologist gave him the maps, he went digging and found Tiktaalik. He didn't find birds, or mammals or amphibians, he found a fish ... with rudimentary legs.

See? Rambling. But I'm done for now. I just spent 9 hours writing about cell signaling, development and evolution for my PhD preliminary exam and I'm a bit brain dead. So if you have any questions about evolution and whatnot, I encourage you to leave them and I'll get back to them tomorrow sometime.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/01/11 02:16 PM

Quote:

Well this is something ... I thought you said that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive and both have their own pervue? I see your following comments as flying in the face of your previous comments

Yes, I did say that. I do believe science has its place and faith has its place. I just think it is a statement of "blind faith" to say, ( as ms mouse did) that there is no God. To assert this, one would have to say that either the universe always existed or that, ( if it had a beginning) it began to exist without a cause.

Firstly, the assumption that the universe came into existence by merely natural causes cannot be demonstrated scientifically, can it? Secondly,the assumption that life sprang out of non living matter by mere chance is also a matter of faith, as scientists werent around to observe it. Thirdly, the assumption that man evolved from apes is also unfounded, unless you know of some type of proof, it is also a matter of what one believes, not what has been scientifically proven.

Quote:

To say there is some, is an understatement. There are literally 10's of thousands of experiments and studies ranging from math to neuroscience that back up the idea that evolution leading to speciation has occurred in the past as it occurs now.

Changes within a species, correct? In other words, lizards remain lizards, birds remain birds, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish, etc.

Quote:

but do you actually believe that all life evolved from one common ancestor?

Quote:

Yes. Let me ask you a question rather than me rambling on and on about it. Why don't you believe life originated from a common ancestor?

Because there is no conclusive proof. Show me some evidence that life originated from a common ancestor that cannot be explained by the possibility that all life has a common creator.

Have we ever observed one species evolving into another. If so, please elaborate? If not, why do so many people accept these as scientific facts?

Quote:

Yes. We've seen it posthoc, in the fossil record with many animals like whales, sea lions, bats, birds, etc. I guess you have to buy into an earth that is billions of years old to believe this one. Do you?

I am not one to try to guess the age of the earth. So are you saying that whales, sea lions, bats, and birds evolved into something else, or that another species evolved into bats, birds, sea lions, and whales? Please provide more information so I can research this for myself.

How about some current speciation events? [url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html]

Quote:

Here's[/url] one where lizards have changed their diet from strict carnivores to mostly herbivores

but theyre still lizards right?

Quote:

We've also created many reproductively isolated strains of fruit fly in labs that never interbreed.

You said you created them. That's human intervention. That has nothing to do with random evolution. What they created had an intelligent designer, namely the scientists.

Quote:

The hawthorne fly, ring species like ensantina salamanders in california, many types of bacteria and tons of plant life, just to name a few more. These are all instances where organisms were and still are genetically isolated from a sister group that end up with a different genetic code, or different behavior, etc. This is speciation.

Did the Hawthorne fly turn into a bird? Did the salamanders turn into salmon? If all life evolved from a common ancestor you would have lizards turning evolving into birds, apes evolving into humans, whatever. Please provide evidence of these assumptions.

Quote:

Did you know that Darwin didnt have any degree in science, he had a B.A in Theology. Most church pastors have more education than this.

Quote:

That was literally 150 years ago when the majority of people doing science didn't have any degrees. And come on LA, youre better than stooping to character assassination to prove a point, right?

Never questioned his character.

Quote:

Regardless, it doesn't matter. Creationist arguments like this are interesting because they think that if they can discredit the man, they can discredit the science.They also think that scientists hold him in some god-like regard. The fact is that he's not, and scientists do not. The guy bought into things like homeopathy and hydrology. He was hardly a scientific role model.

How much impact and influence did the book "On the origin of species" hae on modern science?

Quote:

Also, he was wrong in some of his hypotheses that lie outside of natural selection. It wasn't until the mid 1900's that the Modern Synthesis of Evolution was formed out of Mendel's genetics (he was a monk, and didn't have a science degree either, that doesn't mean he wasn't right), modern ecology, and darwin's natural selection. There need to be 4 things for evolution by way of natural selection to occur.1.) You need a trait 2.) that trait must confer an increase in the ability of an organism to survive 3.) the trait must be heritable 4.) long amounts of time. Mendel was the first to coin the term "gene" and show that these genes confer traits even though he had no idea what exactly a gene was composed of. And finally ecology, which studies interactions of organisms within an ecosystem and was the birthplace of both of these hypotheses, and later, scientific theories. So while Darwin is credited with natural selection, he's not credited with the totality of our current understanding of evolution.

That being said, Darwin's hypothesis has also stood up to 150 years worth of observation and testing in geology, genetics, development, molecular, ecological, neural, physiological, etc. sciences. And has shown to have a predictive power too. For example, since natural selection is a massively multi-linear process (ie it makes a tree, with many branches), we wouldn't expect to find rabbits before mammals, or birds before dinosaurs in the fossil record. If we did, it would invalidate evolution as we know it. One of the most recent examples was about five or six years back when a man was in a race with another lab, searching for an early tetrapod ancestor that was mostly water bound, but could go on land for short distances. Due to our current fossil record he made an educated guess that they would be in between the emergence of lobe-finned fish and early amphibians, a time called the Devonian. He went to a geologist, asking for any records of exposed rock formations dated to that time period. The geologist gave him the maps, he went digging and found Tiktaalik. He didn't find birds, or mammals or amphibians, he found a fish ... with rudimentary legs.

So the scientist began with an assumption, then went out to find proof of his assumption? Isnt that what Creationists are accused of doing?

Quote:

See? Rambling. But I'm done for now. I just spent 9 hours writing about cell signaling, development and evolution for my PhD preliminary exam and I'm a bit brain dead. So if you have any questions about evolution and whatnot, I encourage you to leave them and I'll get back to them tomorrow sometime.

Thank you for your imput. My argument is not so much against evolution, ( there are theists who believe in evolution, though I personally do not believe in apes evolving into humans, can you show me supporting evidence), as it is against the assumption that the universe is a giant cosmic accident, That is an assumption and a huge leap of faith, in my opinion. We've had this conversation before, and we came to the same point.

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/01/11 09:00 PM

Quote:

it began to exist without a cause.

There was a cause, and that was the big bang.

Quote:

Firstly, the assumption that the universe came into existence by merely natural causes cannot be demonstrated scientifically, can it? Secondly,the assumption that life sprang out of non living matter by mere chance is also a matter of faith, as scientists werent around to observe it. Thirdly, the assumption that man evolved from apes is also unfounded, unless you know of some type of proof, it is also a matter of what one believes, not what has been scientifically proven.

1.) Demonstrated scientifically? Are you asking if we can initiate a big bang? Regardless, do you remember the site i gave you with the four reasons we know the big bang occurred? Here it is again for you to read.

2.) There are many preliminary organic molecules, and even amino acids, that are measurable in other places within our universe. These form without enzymes, or any other biological process. So the building blocks are there. Maybe the key to unlocking life is abundant, liquid water.

3.) Human evolution from an ape-like ancestor is well characterized. Google it.

Also, the fact that no one was around to observe it means absolutely squat. We can discover roughly what happened after the fact by asking questions and combing through the evidence that it leaves behind.

Quote:

Changes within a species, correct? In other words, lizards remain lizards, birds remain birds, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish, etc.

Not the biblical sense of the word species, the biological sense. Not all lizards, birds, cats or dogs are the same. Speciation is when an organism is no longer able to reproduce with a sister population, from which both populations were derived. Their genes, proteins, and developmental timing have changed so much that they can no longer interbreed and produce viable offspring. Horses and Donkeys and breed, even have offspring, but that offspring is sterile and cannot pass on it's genes. That is speciation. Would you call a Donkey a horse, a tiger a lion, or a human a neanderthal? No, because they belong to different species.

Quote:

Because there is no conclusive proof. Show me some evidence that life originated from a common ancestor that cannot be explained by the possibility that all life has a common creator.

Proof of common descent? Ok, here goes.

1.) Comparative sequence analyses, a technique that compares the genes of different species, examines the idea that if common descent were true, then we will expect organisms that are derived from a similar ancestor, to have similar genes. Using this technique we are able to trace our way back through the genomes of organisms that are still around, because they haven't changed much genomically compared to the common ancestor. And what we find is that we can trace our way genomically from bacteria to mammals and to humans based on the similarity of their genes.

2.) Developmental regulatory genes called Hox genes help organize the early body plan. In some instances these genes can be taken from one species and transplanted in one that's totally different and haven't shared a common ancestor in millions of years ( like from mouse to fly) and still function semi normally. It's not a fully functional rescue, but it's there.

3.) Atavisms and vestigial structures.

And so forth.

Saying "God did it" is fine in religion. But when we have fact and observation to back our theories, it shows that natural process were at work. Again, scientific methodology cannot test something that is inherently untestable, so you can't attribute to an unseen force and call that science. There's also very little explanatory power in just attributing the acts to God. So where is your empirical proof that a creator was involved? Can you provide it? If you follow your previous arguments in this thread your answer should be no, because God and christianity are above cause and effect.

Quote:

So are you saying that whales, sea lions, bats, and birds evolved into something else, or that another species evolved into bats, birds, sea lions, and whales? Please provide more information so I can research this for myself.

We have fossil records that show mammals going back into the ocean and become whales over millions of years, the same with sea lion ancestors. We have fossil records of dinosaurs becoming birds and rodents taking to the sky and evolving echolocation and lizards losing their legs and become snakes. Wikipedia is a great resource for these topics. Or just google the animal and evolution and you should come up with some good articles.

Quote:

but theyre still lizards right?

See above, and google "species."

Quote:

You said you created them. That's human intervention. That has nothing to do with random evolution. What they created had an intelligent designer, namely the scientists.

Doesn't matter, it's proof of concept. If it can happen in the lab, it can happen in nature. Not to mention, we use the same methods as would happen in nature to achieve the results, namely altered gene flow. If evolution were untrue, this wouldn't happen! We didn't design them, we just stacked the cards against them and through evolutionary principles found a way to survive within the rules we gave them.

Quote:

Did the Hawthorne fly turn into a bird? Did the salamanders turn into salmon? If all life evolved from a common ancestor you would have lizards turning evolving into birds, apes evolving into humans, whatever. Please provide evidence of these assumptions.

Lol! No you wouldn't! Who told you that? A salamander will only ever be a salamander. However, if they have a trait, and that trait confers a greater reproductive ability, and that trait is heritable, then over time and many reproductive bouts, that original salamanders 100x-great grandchildren may become a species separate from their 100x-great grandfather. That's speciation through evolution. Google the Hawthorne fly evolution, you may learn something.

Quote:

Never questioned his character.

No, you questioned his credentials.

Quote:

How much impact and influence did the book "On the origin of species" have on modern science?

Modern science? Not much at all. Modern biology quite a bit.

Quote:

So the scientist began with an assumption, then went out to find proof of his assumption? Isnt that what Creationists are accused of doing?

No, creationists start off with the idea that God is responsible for everything, there's fact on which which to base their assumption. What this scientist did was make a prediction, he formed a hypothesis, that was based on evolutionary principles and fact. If evolution weren't true, he could find evidence of any type animal in that rock. However, what he found was something that wasn't quite a fish, and wasn't quite a tetrapod. The difference is its an assumption based on fact vs. faith.

Quote:

though I personally do not believe in apes evolving into humans

The fossil record shows otherwise. Go look at the wikipedia page on human evolution.

Quote:

and we came to the same point.

You're not trying to convince me. All this is, is me spouting off fact after fact, which you summarily ignore, or don't understand, or something. If you want me to believe a creator formed this earth, and that creator is God, show me his handiwork in the physical world. "God did it" isn't enough, and doesn't explain why things occur in nature the way they do. The only thing you've done is quote the Bible, and just a few verses at that. Go to the library of congress webpage and search "evolution" and see how many hits you get. The reason we're at the same point is that you're not willing to let go of this pet idea that earth is only a few thousand years old, when every single shred of evidence shows otherwise. You're turning a blind eye to physical world and the rules that make it up.

LA you were right when you said religion shouldn't tread in science's territory and vice versa. You can't have it both ways.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/01/11 10:32 PM

You're right, you're definitely not a farmer. Most plants die when you whack 'em off at the base, that's why they did it that way 2,000 years ago, which is referenced in the link you posted, and that's why they still do it now in places where things that weren't invented yet 2,000 years ago are not widely available.

Now you were doing reasonably well interpreting morality plays but now I see you have ventured off into evolution. Being handled pretty well so far but I will add a few points.

Man did not evolve from apes, Man IS an ape, Man and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. All the ape groups have evolved into distinct species, while having a common ancestor. The differences are similar to the salamanders and lizards, horses and donkeys mentioned already.

There are numerous evolutionary steps in many species that are clearly documented in fossil records. So much so that I classify those who reject evolution on about the same plane as people that get radio messages from Venus.

Posted By: YTownBrownsFan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/01/11 10:44 PM

Actually .... since weeds are plants ..... I can tell you that many do not, in fact, die off if you "whack 'em off at the base". If there is any root structure left, many weeds grow back. I have some vines that prove this every year ... as we pull them .... even get some root ..... and a week later they are back ..... snarling up everything again ......

There are many perennial plants that grow back annually, seemingly no matter what is done to them.

Shrubs and bushes are routinely cut way back to allow for fuller growth to occur.

Farming is not as easy as don't "whack 'em off at the base".

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 01:40 AM

Quote:

You're right, you're definitely not a farmer. Most plants die when you whack 'em off at the base, that's why they did it that way 2,000 years ago, which is referenced in the link you posted, and that's why they still do it now in places where things that weren't invented yet 2,000 years ago are not widely available.

Quote:

Now you were doing reasonably well interpreting morality plays but now I see you have ventured off into evolution. Being handled pretty well so far but I will add a few points.

Quote:

Man did not evolve from apes, Man IS an ape, Man and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. All the ape groups have evolved into distinct species, while having a common ancestor. The differences are similar to the salamanders and lizards, horses and donkeys mentioned already

There are numerous evolutionary steps in many species that are clearly documented in fossil records. So much so that I classify those who reject evolution on about the same plane as people that get radio messages from Venus.

that was pretty funny. Actually, I havent responded to Draft yet because I am looking into some of his claims as to the fossil records and transitional forms. When I have sufficiently weighed his claims, I will respond to you both.

Posted By: Nelson37 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 02:01 AM

Thank you for your input.

Apparently, at least when dealing with plants which infest wheat fields in the middle east, around 2,000 years ago, they do in fact die when cut off.

The article which LAB linked to clearly describes the procedure using a sicle, a method I had speculated might be the case before reading the article. The same procedure is described as still in use today, which would lead one to believe that it is fairly effective.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 02:10 AM

Quote:

There was a cause, and that was the big bang.

What caused the big bang? Where did the matter that began to expand come from? The big bang theory teaches that the universe was originally in a hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. So where did the building blocks for the universe come from. Science cannot answer that can it? I will give a detailed account of how the Bible explains it at a later time, time does not permit me to right now.

Quote:

1.) Demonstrated scientifically? Are you asking if we can initiate a big bang? Regardless, do you remember the site i gave you with the four reasons we know the big bang occurred? Here it is again for you to read.

I asked if the universe came into being by natural means alone. This is an absurd question, because how could there be natural laws without a universe. If nothing existed, then at the universes genesis there were no natural laws or phenomenom, if something existed, it either always existed or it was caused by something else. The universe could not have caused itself any more than a house's architect could be one of the walls of the house.

As to your other arguments, similarity does not necessarily imply a common ancestor. Just because humans and extinct apelike creatures, or whales and extinct land animals share similarities doesnt mean they have a common ancestor or evolved from one to the other.

I dont have time to go over everything in detail, and I am still looking into some of your claims, but I'll post again in a day or two with a complete answer.

With regards

PS- I never quoted any scripture in reference to creation as you said I did.

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 03:36 AM

Quote:

As to your other arguments, similarity does not necessarily imply a common ancestor.

If it were just similarity that we based the hypothesis of a common ancestor from, then you'd be right. As I said in that post, there are many reasons from multiple different lines of evidence that support this idea.

Quote:

Just because humans and extinct apelike creatures, or whales and extinct land animals share similarities doesnt mean they have a common ancestor or evolved from one to the other.

No, you're right. But it's the best available evidence we have, and again, it complements the other theories that we have in place from other lines of evidence.

Here's a decent video explaining whale evolution from a wolf-like ancestor to their current form.

Oh and don't just focus on creationist websites, as you try to debunk this stuff. Go to other places too.

Quote:

The universe could not have caused itself any more than a house's architect could be one of the walls of the house.

The cause doesn't matter. What matters is that we're sure that this event, the big bang, happened and led to the current configuration of the universe.

Quote:

So where did the building blocks for the universe come from. Science cannot answer that can it? I will give a detailed account of how the Bible explains it at a later time, time does not permit me to right now.

They came as an after-effect of the big bang. As the plasma cooled, and elementary particles were allowed to mingle, Hydrogen and probably some helium formed out of it. Those elements led to star formation, then galaxy formation, and also all the elements we see on earth today.

I look forward to the biblical account of this.

Quote:

PS- I never quoted any scripture in reference to creation as you said I did.

Remember "Hangs the world on nothing?" That seems pretty creation-y to me.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 05:50 AM

Quote:

If it were just similarity that we based the hypothesis of a common ancestor from, then you'd be right. As I said in that post, there are many reasons from multiple different lines of evidence that support this idea.

I understand. I simply havent had time to review the evidence you are offering.
It's been a busy day.

Quote:

Here's a decent video explaining whale evolution from a wolf-like ancestor to their current form.

Thank you for the video. I will watch it.

Quote:

Oh and don't just focus on creationist websites, as you try to debunk this stuff. Go to other places too.

Actually I don't go to websites to find most of what I say. If I go to websites, it is to help me to verbalize the views that I already have. In other words, I came to be a creationist through my study of the Bible and the innate knowledge that was already in me. I just don't always have the vocabulary to express it.

Dont worry, I am also reviewing websites that support the theory of evolution. I am interested in truth, so I always look at both sides as much as I am able

Quote:

The cause doesn't matter. What matters is that we're sure that this event, the big bang, happened and led to the current configuration of the universe.

You still havent answered where the matter that existed before the "big bang" came from. Something had to have existed to expand. What was the cause of that matter, or did it always exist?

Quote:

They came as an after-effect of the big bang. As the plasma cooled, and elementary particles were allowed to mingle, Hydrogen and probably some helium formed out of it. Those elements led to star formation, then galaxy formation, and also all the elements we see on earth today.

Understood, but what did the "big bang" bang? In other words, what did the action of the big bang act upon, and what was the origin of that which was acted upon?

Quote:

I look forward to the biblical account of this.

Not a biblical account of the "big bang" but a biblical account of how things came to exist.

Quote:

Remember "Hangs the world on nothing?" That seems pretty creation-y to me.

The context of that quote was the reliability of the Bible, not Creationism. I know they are related, but Creationism vs Random Evolution wasnt the rabbet that we were chasing at that time.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 01:14 PM

Before I share the biblical explantion of how life came into existence, would you mind answering a few question?

1. In your opinion, what events led to the origin of life? In other words, how was life generated from non-living matter?

2. Is there scientific evidence for the theory of Pangaea?

3. Is there any scientific evidence that the earth once had a tropical or subtropical climate over most of its surface?

4. I How do you define light?

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 01:38 PM

Regarding the video, let me see if I have this straight. A skull of a wolf like creature was found that had a characteristic in its inner ear that was similar to a whales inner ear. So that automatically made it a land whale?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent there amazing similarities between the human eye and the eye of a squid? Does that mean that humans went back to the oceans to became squids, or that squids crawled out of the ocean and became humans? Just because they have similarities, doesnt mean that one evolved from another.

Then they found some leg bones, and automatically assumed that the leg bones were from a basilosaurus. How did they know that the leg bones were from a basilosaurus? How did they know that the leg bones were that of a whale? Because of the inner ear thing?

Just because an organism is extinct doesnt make it a link.

And these wolflike creatures evolved into whales because they spent so much time in water?

And the fact that sea mammals like dolphins and whales move more like land mammals than they do fish proves that they once lived on land?

That's a lot of speculation if you ask me.

Posted By: FloridaFan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 02:24 PM

Quote:

That's a lot of speculation if you ask me.

So is the idea of a supreme being creating the earth and the making man from dirt, then making a woman from one of mans ribs. That's why they call it faith. You or I can't prove or disprove it so we choose to believe it, each for their own reasons.

It amazes me how many times the subject of creation vs evolution is fought out, and both sides just argue away.

Like a blind man and a deaf man arguing over the beauty of the ocean. No matter how much they argue over it, one will never see the beauty the other man hears.

Posted By: msmouse05 Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 05:23 PM

Quote:

Like a blind man and a deaf man arguing over the beauty of the ocean. No matter how much they argue over it, one will never see the beauty the other man hears.

I agree that you are rarely ever going to get one to admit the other is right.

But I would have to say a better example would be two men standing by the ocean arguing over its existence. One man, will call him Evolution says it is very beautiful, a true wonder and right in front of him, he can see it clearly. The second man, will call him Creation, says no way it exists, I read that it is not real and there are only lakes. The difference being Evolution is facing the ocean, while Creation has never seen the ocean and refuses to turn around and just look!

Posted By: Moxdawg Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 05:42 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Like a blind man and a deaf man arguing over the beauty of the ocean. No matter how much they argue over it, one will never see the beauty the other man hears.

I agree that you are rarely ever going to get one to admit the other is right.

But I would have to say a better example would be two men standing by the ocean arguing over its existence. One man, will call him Evolution says it is very beautiful, a true wonder and right in front of him, he can see it clearly. The second man, will call him Creation, says no way it exists, I read that it is not real and there are only lakes. The difference being Evolution is facing the ocean, while Creation has never seen the ocean and refuses to turn around and just look!

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 06:49 PM

So are you saying that it takes just as much faith to believe that the universe and what it is composed of came into existence by mere chance, than to believe in a creator? Remember, if you say the universe came into existence through the "big bang", you still have to deal with whatever existed before the big bang. Does it take a certain ammount of faith to believe in a universe governed by nothing more than random chance? If not, what is the proof of a universe caused by purely random and naturalistic causes? I am not asking if it is possible, I am asking is it undeniable.

If you add this assumption to the theory of evolution, are you still within the realms of scientific observation, or have you just added a faith or a bias to your observations.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 07:00 PM

Quote:

But I would have to say a better example would be two men standing by the ocean arguing over its existence. One man, will call him Evolution says it is very beautiful, a true wonder and right in front of him, he can see it clearly. The second man, will call him Creation, says no way it exists, I read that it is not real and there are only lakes. The difference being Evolution is facing the ocean, while Creation has never seen the ocean and refuses to turn around and just look!

Here is the progression of my reactions to this statement.

Your parable doesnt make sense.

I usually dont quote scriptures when I talk to atheists, but I think I will make an exception in this case, and let the chips fall where they may.

Quote:

Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It's debatable as to which side is not openig their eyes,

Do you really believe that people who study science are absolutely without bias?

Evolution aside, doesnt reason itself teach you that everything that has a beginning must have a cause, and the thing that exists could not have caused itself any more than the architect of a building could be a wall of that building. This is a paraphrased quote from CS Lewis. CS Lewis was an atheist until he examined his worldview critically, and became one of the greatest Christian minds of the 20th century.

Remember this argument from the article I posted earlier?

1. All things that have a beginning have a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. The universe has a cause.

Now go ahead and say the "big bang" caused it all. I will answer that the "big bang" also had a beginning, and therefore had a cause.

What do you think of this quote regarding the cause of the Big bang?

Quote:

Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space. url=http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-caused-the-big-bang.html]http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-caused-the-big-bang.html[/url]

The cause of the universe according to this quote sure sounds a lot like my earlier definition of God. Yet the writer proceeds to argue against God with the following statement:

Quote:

For many "God caused the big bang" is a perfectly reasonable response. This seems to help many cope with the unsatisfying prospect of an event without a cause.

The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause.So this answer doesn't solve the causality issue whatsoever.

The simple answer to this is that God is the architect of the universe including time and space. As we said before, it is not reasonable to assume the architect is part of the universe, He or it must exist outside of the natural universe. Whatever or whoever exists outside of nature and the universe would not be subject to time, space, or cause.

If you say that the universe that existed before the big bang, and which occupied an infinitesimal point in space is eternal, then that is really no different than saying the universe is eternal, it just existed in a different form.
.
The author concludes his article by saying:

Quote:

The answer to the cause of the universe will almost certainly be something strange and, by definition, wholly beyond our experience. Our occluded brains must always be open the answer, especially when asking questions that push the limits of our capacity to understand.

In conclusion, I contend that the belief in God is not based on scientific evidence but reason and revelation. By reason we know that a "Higher Power" exists. By revelation we know who that Higher Power is.

God is not concerned with Gallup Poll opinion
Or if the whole human race were to disagree with Him
Truth is what I spit
But you ain't hearing it
Or you ain't having it
But it don't matter which
'Cause God is still himself
and He could strike us dead
Even in the pink of health
You don't think I should say that
You say you don't believe that
Our opinion counts for zero,
And that is simply that,
I'm Mojo that's how it goes that's just the
way of things
God is not impressed disagreeing won't change anything,
We all must beg for mercy and surely God'll show it
There's a reason for our hope you ask me how I know it
God said it and that's without a doubt
"He who comes to me I will in no way cast out"

"Escape from Reason" by the OC Supertones

Note: No Creationist websites were accessed while I was typing this post. Just the Deepastronomy website.

Posted By: FloridaFan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 09:57 PM

Quote:

So are you saying that it takes just as much faith to believe that the universe and what it is composed of came into existence by mere chance, than to believe in a creator? Remember, if you say the universe came into existence through the "big bang", you still have to deal with whatever existed before the big bang. Does it take a certain ammount of faith to believe in a universe governed by nothing more than random chance?

No, what I am saying that if someone doesn't have "faith" then no matter what bible verse you show them, they aren't going to believe your "creation" story any more than you believe their "evolution" story.

Quote:

If not, what is the proof of a universe caused by purely random and naturalistic causes? I am not asking if it is possible, I am asking is it undeniable.

If you add this assumption to the theory of evolution, are you still within the realms of scientific observation, or have you just added a faith or a bias to your observations.

No more than your bias to believe in pages printed in a book are fact. Without your faith, those pages are nothing but stories. You can not prove creation anymore than he can prove evolution. It's a dead argument.

And for the record, I have faith and believe in creation, but I am also open minded enough to allow someone else to believe in evolution until such time that God enters into his/her life and opens their eyes to what we of faith see. It's not my job as a Christian to herd the non-believers like cattle, but to witness my testimony in the belief that my words will reach their ears through Gods good grace and plant the seeds of faith.

Posted By: jfanent Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 10:01 PM

Quote:

No more than your bias to believe in pages printed in a book are fact. Without your faith, those pages are nothing but stories. You can not prove creation anymore than he can prove evolution. It's a dead argument.

And for the record, I have faith and believe in creation, but I am also open minded enough to allow someone else to believe in evolution until such time that God enters into his/her life and opens their eyes to what we of faith see. It's not my job as a Christian to herd the non-believers like cattle, but to witness my testimony in the belief that my words will reach their ears through Gods good grace and plant the seeds of faith.

Bravo! This post should end this discussion. It can resume on October 13.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/02/11 10:45 PM

Quote:

Quote:

So are you saying that it takes just as much faith to believe that the universe and what it is composed of came into existence by mere chance, than to believe in a creator? Remember, if you say the universe came into existence through the "big bang", you still have to deal with whatever existed before the big bang. Does it take a certain ammount of faith to believe in a universe governed by nothing more than random chance?

No, what I am saying that if someone doesn't have "faith" then no matter what bible verse you show them, they aren't going to believe your "creation" story any more than you believe their "evolution" story.

Quote:

If not, what is the proof of a universe caused by purely random and naturalistic causes? I am not asking if it is possible, I am asking is it undeniable.

If you add this assumption to the theory of evolution, are you still within the realms of scientific observation, or have you just added a faith or a bias to your observations.

No more than your bias to believe in pages printed in a book are fact. Without your faith, those pages are nothing but stories. You can not prove creation anymore than he can prove evolution. It's a dead argument.

And for the record, I have faith and believe in creation, but I am also open minded enough to allow someone else to believe in evolution until such time that God enters into his/her life and opens their eyes to what we of faith see. It's not my job as a Christian to herd the non-believers like cattle, but to witness my testimony in the belief that my words will reach their ears through Gods good grace and plant the seeds of faith.

Very good. I am not trying to herd anyone, I am answering the people who came and said things like "there is no God", "the Bible is nonsense", and "Christians are a bunch of murderous butchers". Do you think that we as people of faith should let these types of statements go unchallenged? If we remain silent while others go around making these types of claims, then people may accept these claims uncritically. We are constantly being bombarded with messages and claims of atheism, agnosticism, hatred of God, hatred of religion, etc through the educational system and the media. I believe this trend is having an incredibly destructive effect on our great nation and our youth. Are we as people of faith going to sit by idly and let this happen? Did Jesus, or the prophets, or the apostles sit around on their thumbs while their nation slipped into apostasy?

My only goal in this whole discussion was to challenge the assumptions and provide the other side of the argument. If an atheist can come on and say God doesnt exist, why cant a Christian give supporting evidence for the existence of God?

I have no problem with people who believe in evolution. I have tremendous respect for Draftdayz that has developed in conversations I have had with him. Someones sig reads something like, "if everyone had like minds, we would never learn anything.", and I agree with that. I have learned much from my discussion with Draftdayz, and others.

For those who dont believe in God, I am not trying to insult you or attack you, I am just sharing why I dont think atheism is logical. Furthermore, the point I was trying to make is that atheism is not logical, not that evolution is not logical. To be honest, I lack the scientific knowledge to even try to disprove evolution, I was merely posing challenges and questions. Can you point to one post where I said "evolution is not true"? No, I merely asked questions and raised objections. I know it can be very dangerous to ask critical questions about evolution.

Believe it or not, I do not accept the claims of Christianity uncritically either. I am constantly asking questions of my own beliefs, not out of doubt,but because I know that a person can never learn or grow in knowledge without asking questions. As Ive studied the Bible, history, languages, and even a little bit of nature, I have come to conclusions I never would have accepted 20 years ago. It's not that my worldview has changed, its that new questions have caused me to find new answers that I hadnt even considered before. Therefore, I like to ask questions and be asked questions by others.

I realize 1 Peter 3:15 says to be ready to give an answer of the hope that we have, but to do so with gentleness and respect. If I have failed in the gentleness part, please forgive me, but I don't think I showed anyone any disrespect. I did say some things in humor, I hope they werent misunderstood.

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/03/11 02:15 AM

Quote:

You still havent answered where the matter that existed before the "big bang" came from. Something had to have existed to expand. What was the cause of that matter, or did it always exist?

I believe you answer it yourself later on. We don't know, and possibly can never know. I'll reiterate the point that this doesn't matter. We know that the big bang occurred, and we know that the universe is the result of it.

Quote:

Understood, but what did the "big bang" bang? In other words, what did the action of the big bang act upon, and what was the origin of that which was acted upon?

The big bang acted on everything you see today. Elementary particles like quarks, electrons and photons that now make up all the matter and energy in the universe was packed into a very small area. That was what underwent the process, or whatever, that is the big bang. As the universe cooled below 3000 kelvin, protons and neutrons started to form and pair up with electrons to make hydrogen atoms. From that hydrogen all the elements were fused together in the first stars.

Quote:

Before I share the biblical explantion of how life came into existence, would you mind answering a few question?

Ok.

Quote:

1. In your opinion, what events led to the origin of life? In other words, how was life generated from non-living matter?

There are many plausible hypotheses. Darwin's "Warm pond," the miller-urey experiment, RNA world all have some evidence showing at least some plausibility. As I've said before, precursors to amino acids are nothing spectacular outside of earth. Alot of the building blocks that cellular metabolism as we know it is built on, occurs in nature with differing amounts of frequency.

Quote:

2. Is there scientific evidence for the theory of Pangaea?

Umm, yes. Quite a bit. The proving of plate tectonics back in the 50's and 60's vetted continental drift theory that was proposed in the early 1900's. Since then have been able to go around the world and create not only a map of how the plates used to fit together, but also the paths that led to their current configuration. There's also evidence for super-continents before pangaea too. You're not going to try to call this into doubt are you?

Quote:

3. Is there any scientific evidence that the earth once had a tropical or subtropical climate over most of its surface?

Possibly. I mean at some point all the continents have been along the equator I think.

Quote:

4. I How do you define light?

As a photon, an elementary particle that exhibits both wave and particle characteristics.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/03/11 02:34 AM

Quote:

Umm, yes. Quite a bit. The proving of plate tectonics back in the 50's and 60's vetted continental drift theory that was proposed in the early 1900's. Since then have been able to go around the world and create not only a map of how the plates used to fit together, but also the paths that led to their current configuration. There's also evidence for super-continents before pangaea too. You're not going to try to call this into doubt are you?

Actually no, quite the opposite. I'm actually not going to call any of your answers into doubt. I agree with you on your answers for 2-4, and line one you just give hypothesis, so there is not disagreement here.

Regarding Pangaea, I definitely will not call that into question because the Bible has portions of scripture that seem to mention it. More on this later.

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/03/11 03:46 AM

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent there amazing similarities between the human eye and the eye of a squid? Does that mean that humans went back to the oceans to became squids, or that squids crawled out of the ocean and became humans? Just because they have similarities, doesnt mean that one evolved from another.

You're right, similarity does not necessarily mean that they evolved from one another, but it's one highly plausible explanation. Similar selective pressures can lead very diverse animals into similar roles in the ecosystem, called a niche. For example, take placental vs. marsupial mammals. Very different developmentally and physiologically, splitting from their most common ancestor before the dinosaurs died off. When pangaea started to split, placental animals went one way, and marsupials the other. Over 65 million years they they bred apart from one another. And yet we see fossil and living animals from each of those very different mammals that look vaguely similar to one another, causing naturalists (early biologists) to lump them into similar groups. However, we now know that although they look roughly the same, they come from different ancestors and have different evolutionary histories. But, through natural selection, they reached similar adaptive outcomes over those millions of years to become the top predators, or the best diggers, or tree climbers, etc. that tried to occupy that niche.

Another example, you use squid vs human (some jelly fish too, believe it or not) eyes as an example, which is a good one for this argument because they both work by way of the same light-capturing device, the camera. Upon closer inspection, we see that they can't be more different. Developmentally, all vertebrate eyes form early in life as an outgrowth of the early brain. This outgrowth forms the retina and optic nerves which carry the signal back to the brain. The optic vesicles need to touch the ectoderm to initiate cellular differentiation that results in the lens, cornea, sclera, etc. Basically everything that contacts and interacts with the world. These processes result in two major design flaws. The first is that the lens inverts the picture. This means that the brain must first interpret everything from upside down, to right side up. The second is that the retina forms inside out. Instead of light passing through our eye and impacting directly onto cells that sense photons, the photons must pass through all the connective tissue, blood vessels, support cells and nerve fibers before the picture gets sent to the brain. All those nerves need to join up to form the optic nerve, and this leads to our blind spot, which is an area devoid of photon-sensing cells, and just has nerve bundles.

Squids, and other cephalopods, did it right evolutionarily though. Instead of developing as an outgrowth of the brain, their eyes develop as an invagination of the ectoderm (or skin). This results in a signal that is transmitted right-side up, and cells that are uncovered and free to receive photons of light. As a result, they have no blindspot.

Here's a good picture showing the different between the two types of eye. Vertebrate is on the left, Cephalopod on the right. You can see that the retinal tissue layers are inside out (Photon-sensing cells = #1, nerves/blood vessels = #2, optic nerve = #3) with vertebrates, resulting in the blind spot indicated with the number four. Cephalopod eye labeling: #1 = nerves/blood vessels, #2 = Photon-sensing cells, #3 = optic nerve.

And no, humans or squid haven't shared a common ancestor in around 500 million years or so. Our two species have vastly different development, and therefore belong to very separated phyla. They belong to the phyla "Mollusca" where we belong to "Chordata."

Quote:

A skull of a wolf like creature was found that had a characteristic in its inner ear that was similar to a whales inner ear. So that automatically made it a land whale?

No. What it's saying is that the portion of the inner ear that was preserved is a highly specialized structure that only exists now in cetaceans and helps them sense up and down in the water, no easy feat. Land mammals don't have this now, nor do any of the other fossil mammals from that time or before that we've dug up. What this makes it is a probable ancestor for whales and dolphins.

But it's not just that either. They've found more of the skeleton for Pakicetus skeleton and have almost a full Ambulocetus skeleton. Both of them show similar adaptations to their skeleton that infer an aquatic type of life. Denser bones, arrangements of bone and ligament/tendon attachment sites all point to swimming behaviors, as well as the nose moving up the head to it's current place in cetaceans.

Quote:

Then they found some leg bones, and automatically assumed that the leg bones were from a basilosaurus.

I assume because they found them together, in close proximity, within the same layer of rock. Fossils aren't just (usually) lying around in large numbers you know

On a semi-side note, you know that whales still have a pelvis right? It's shrunken, but still present. They're vestigial (for the most part), like our ear muscles, or appendix.

Quote:

And these wolflike creatures evolved into whales because they spent so much time in water?

Kind of. But what happened is they probably became more and more reliant on the ocean for their food, safety, etc. Them living more in the ocean than on land had to allow them a better chance of surviving until they were able to reproduce and pass on their genes. This happening repeatedly over many generation is what led from the wolf-like ancestor to other more cetacean-like forms that include the movement of the nares to the top of the head. Those that were better able to do this survived, those that didn't have the adaptations didn't. Remember in order for natural selection to occur you need 4 things: A trait, that confers an advantage over other in the population, that is heritable, and a long amount of time so that the more advantageous genetic code can spread through the population to a fixed state.

Quote:

And the fact that sea mammals like dolphins and whales move more like land mammals than they do fish proves that they once lived on land?

No, their kinetics of movement is just icing on the cake. Remember from above about the bones. We can tell where ligaments and tendons attached on these bones, and from that we can infer the stereotypical movements that they made to live their lives.

Quote:

That's a lot of speculation if you ask me.

I hope I convinced you that it's not speculation at all, but direct observation of processes that occurred millions of years ago.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/03/11 02:04 PM

thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and providing details. I appreciate the time you are putting into this. I just wanted to post a question on the origin of the universe and to give you part of the biblical account of creation, though I imagine you already know it. Because of time constraints, I am only able to post the biblical accounts of days 1-3 at this time. I do believe that these days are literal days, due to the fact that the words evening and morning are used in each instance.

Quote:

We know that the big bang occurred, and we know that the universe is the result of it.

You keep saying that, but doesnt the big bang theory state that the universe existed in a infinitesimal and very hot state before the big bang , ( I think they call it a "singularity") and the big bang merely caused this singularity to begin to expand and cool, forming the universe as we know it today. Forgive my ignorance, but to me that seems to imply t that the big bang altered the universe rather than caused it. By the way, do you contend that this "simularity had a beginning, or did it always exist? Or does anyone even know?

Quote:

Genesis 1: 1- In the begiining, God created the heavens and the earth..."

In the beginning of what? I believe it is the beginning of time and the beginning of the physical universe, ( space). Did anything exist before this beginning of time and space? Well science says the singularity that later became the universe did. The Bible adds the assertion that the spiritual world, ( God, angels, etc else also existed). We cannot scientifically observe this spiritual world so I will not linger on this point.

Genesis 1:1 describes the beginning of the materiel universe. The following verses describe God preparing the earth for life and creating life.

Quote:

Genesis 1:2- And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:2 presents earth in its primordial form. There is no life, the earth is empty and formless, just basic matter. In other words, God first created the materials which He would later use to form life, then He began to fasion it as a master craftsman.

Notice it says that darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. This verse and Genesis 1:9 seem to indicate that the earth in its earliest state was completely covered with water. I noticed you said in an earlier post that the secret to unlocking life may be in an abundance of water. Well here's your abundance of water.

The spirit of God moved or hovered or brooded over the face of the waters. I believe it was the Spirit of God that produced the energy that acted upon the matter to create life.

I want to move on quickly, so I just want to make a few points.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Here we see the formation of the atmosphere on the second day or period if you prefer. Some skeptics argue that the Bible teaches a false cosmology, because they insist the word “firmament” implies a solid dome above the earth. I believe that this idea is refuted by Genesis Genesis 1:20, where the “winged creatures” fly above the earth in the open firmament. The waters above are the clouds, and the waters below are the vast water covered earth. The dry ground has not appeared yet at this point, ( Genesis 1:6-7) in the text. The firmament is the sky, which God named heaven

Quote:

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Notice the waters that covered the earth were gathered together to one place, causing the dry ground to appear. This seems to hint that the continents were all at one time connected. Genesis 10:25 says the earth was divided duing the days of Peleg. The word "earth" in Genesis 10:25 is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:10, where God called the dry land "earth". The Hebrew word Palag literally means "divided", cleaved, or split. When do scientists say the continents began to separate? How did Moses know about this continental split if it happened millions of years ago?

That’s all I have time for right now. I will discuss days 4-6 at a later time if you are interested.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/03/11 06:26 PM

Quote:

do you contend that this "simularity had a beginning

Draftdayz, I meant to say "singularity" here, not simularity. It was a typo.

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/03/11 09:06 PM

Quote:

I just wanted to post a question on the origin of the universe and to give you part of the biblical account of creation, though I imagine you already know it.

Yeah, I grew up christian. To get through a sermon I would read Genesis and revelations, so I'm pretty well read in those areas.

Quote:

By the way, do you contend that this "simularity had a beginning, or did it always exist? Or does anyone even know?

No one knows, and it's possible we can never know empirically.

Quote:

I do believe that these days are literal days, due to the fact that the words evening and morning are used in each instance.

Fair enough. So let me ask you, where's the evidence for this? If God created the universe, he also created the natural laws that run it. As a result, we would have to see days 1 through 3 in the way the earth formed and see evidence of it. Since we don't, why is it hidden from us? Why is the fossil evidence such that it suggest that life started 3.5 billion years ago and up through the billions of years became more complex, and line up morphologically with extant species of today? What's the point of it all? So yeah, I may as well hear the rest of your interpretation to help explain the differences in what we see.

Quote:

When do scientists say the continents began to separate? How did Moses know about this continental split if it happened millions of years ago?

As far as we can see back the continents have always been shifting. How fast is up for debate, but it's believed that there were at least two supercontinents before pangaea, which broke up around 150 million years ago. The other problem i see with your interpretation is that water condensed into oceans after the crust had cooled and the lack of volcanic activity allowed liquid water to exist. Next, we have evidence of a super-cold earth, nicknamed snowball earth, that occurred after the super hot earth. Sometime after that everything equilibrated and we got into our current cycles. I don't necessarily think Moses was talking about continental drift. It's quite a jump to go from "cleaving earth" to mean pangaea breaking up. Looking up alternate interpretations, many seem to think that pelag means "to divide" and that passage is in reference to the dividing of the lands between the new tribes that were planting themselves after the flood (something else that's not in the strata of rock that tell the earth's history).

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/03/11 09:43 PM

Quote:

Yeah, I grew up christian. To get through a sermon I would read Genesis and revelations, so I'm pretty well read in those areas.

Interesting. So do you believe in God? I noticed you never said you didnt. Science aside, what do you believe regarding the existence or non-existence of God, if you don't mind me asking.

Quote:

No one knows, and it's possible we can never know empirically

I guess that is my point.

Quote:

Fair enough. So let me ask you, where's the evidence for this? If God created the universe, he also created the natural laws that run it. As a result, we would have to see days 1 through 3 in the way the earth formed and see evidence of it. Since we don't, why is it hidden from us? Why is the fossil evidence such that it suggest that life started 3.5 billion years ago and up through the billions of years became more complex, and line up morphologically with extant species of today? What's the point of it all? So yeah, I may as well hear the rest of your interpretation to help explain the differences in what we see,

I don't have evidence that they were literal days. That is a statement of faith. I believe they were literal days, because the Bible said so. I know this is unscientific, but it is where I stand. On each of the days of Creation the account reads " and the evening and the morning"...though there are Creationists that believe in an "old earth". I would have to say that my conviction is literal days, but I'm not dogmatic about it.

I dont know if the scientific method for dating fossils is accurate. I have heard that scientists date the oldest fossils based on the geological layer in which they are found, yet they then date geological layers by examining the fossils that are in that the various strata. I know this is probably an oversimplification, so please dispel the myth for me.

A second question. Could a global flood have caused the rock layers to form much more rapidly than had they formed over billions of years. Remember, the Bible says that not only did the rain pour down from the heavens, but also the fountains of the deep were broken up. Also, you would think if an animal died, it would decay, but if it were rapidly buried by the sedimentation caused by the flood it would be more likely to fossilize. I know you have heard these arguments, I'm just curious as to your answer of them.

Quote:

As far as we can see back the continents have always been shifting. How fast is up for debate, but it's believed that there were at least two supercontinents before pangaea, which broke up around 150 million years ago. The other problem i see with your interpretation is that water condensed into oceans after the crust had cooled and the lack of volcanic activity allowed liquid water to exist. Next, we have evidence of a super-cold earth, nicknamed snowball earth, that occurred after the super hot earth. Sometime after that everything equilibrated and we got into our current cycles. I don't necessarily think Moses was talking about continental drift. It's quite a jump to go from "cleaving earth" to mean pangaea breaking up. Looking up alternate interpretations, many seem to think that pelag means "to divide" and that passage is in reference to the dividing of the lands between the new tribes that were planting themselves after the flood (something else that's not in the strata of rock that tell the earth's history). [/quote

]

Actually, in the same chapter that I quoted about the division of the earth, the division of the peoples is also described, but the writer uses a different Hebrew word. In the verse about the division of the earth, he uses the word that is translated earth in Genesis 1, but later he describes the divison of the tribes, or early nations by using the word that means "Peoples" or "nations"

Posted By: Draftdayz Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/03/11 10:19 PM

Quote:

Interesting. So do you believe in God? I noticed you never said you didnt. Science aside, what do you believe regarding the existence or non-existence of God, if you don't mind me asking.

I don't believe in a personal God, as much as I'd like to, and as much as parents would like. From talking to people from other religions who have their own creation stories and religious fact to back up their arguments, I felt the bible and christianity were in the same boat. That's not to say I don't believe in a creator, a prime-mover so to speak, that may or may not have initiated this universe and set the laws in place that govern it. I don't really go out of my way to think about it though as I don't believe it could be measured or quantified or anything like that.

Quote:

I guess that is my point.

It is. My point was that it doesn't matter. Just knowing that it happened is enough to be able to ask questions, observe, test and answer those questions.

Quote:

I dont know if the scientific method for dating fossils is accurate. I have heard that scientists date the oldest fossils based on the geological layer in which they are found, yet they then date geological layers by examining the fossils that are in that the various strata. I know this is probably an oversimplification, so please dispel the myth for me.

We know the age of the rock surrounding fossils two ways. The first is a bit more old fashioned, but people have mapped a good bit of rock strata by just recording what the layers look like and comparing them over large distances. It's not perfect, but in well characterized areas this can be quick to do. The other way is by measuring radioactivity of certain types of rock embedded in those layers. Depending on it's composition we can use any number to radiometric dating methods. Radioactive elements all decay at different stereotypical rates and are differentiated by the length of their half-life. Their "half-life" is the amount of time it takes for a fully homogenous (100%) sample to degrade to another ion or element so that only 50% of the original radioactive element remains. This Half-life allows us to calculate the relative age of rocks with some error because of the inherent large numbers in some half-lives.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/04/11 02:09 AM

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Since you already know the basic creationist view and points, I will conclude my part in this discussion by citing the most important passage relating to the belief in Creation, ( other than perhaps Genesis 1:1)

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The Bible does not make man equal with the animal kingdom, it describes man as the only part of God's materiel creation that is made in His own image. Now how is man made in Gods own image and likeness? Does it mean that he resembles God in physical appearance? I believe the answer is certainly no, because the Bible describes God as a Spirit, not a physical being. So how does man resemble God? Two ways that man resembles God are his creativity and his dominion over the earth.

Regardless of the apparent similarities between man and ape, the differences are far more striking. The accomplishments of this creature we call man are staggering! Weve built cities, planted farms, written books, composed music,
developed fantastic works of art, studied the universe, travelled in earth, space, and sea, studied atoms, cured diseases, and developed technologies. Weve even studied our own minds and bodies. God created us to be creative and inventive, and He also created us with curiosity and a strong desire to know the truth. Weve demonstrated dominion over the earth in the fields of energy, resources, etc. We have lost some of the rights of dominion due to breaking God's laws, the greatest loss of all being the fact that we cannot exercise dominion over ourselves, hence the terrible realities of pain and suffering in our world.

Psalm 8

1 LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

You have set your glory
in the heavens.
2 Through the praise of children and infants
you have established a stronghold against your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?[c]

5 You have made them[d] a little lower than the angels[e]
and crowned them[f] with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their[g] feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
and the animals of the wild,
8 the birds in the sky,
and the fish in the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.

9 LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

God Bless you, Draftdayz.

Posted By: Tyler_Derden Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/04/11 02:58 AM

May I suggest:

Finding Darwin's God

by Kenneth Miller.

Really points out that evolution is a very sound theory, AND completely compatible with organized religion.

Great read. Gets pretty technical at certain points....but nothing that an adult with some basic understanding of science couldn't understand.

Posted By: LA Brown fan Re: End of the world This Saturday - 06/04/11 03:09 AM

thank you for the recommendation. I googled it and I found these comments:
( I'm too broke to buy a book right now, maybe they'll have it at the library.)

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution is a 2000 book by the American cell biologist and Roman Catholic Kenneth R. Miller wherein he argues that evolution does not contradict religious faith. (1) Miller argues that evolution occurred, (2)that the earth is not young,(3) that science must work based on methodological naturalism, and (4) that evolution cannot be construed as an effective argument for atheism.

I numbered the points so that I could interact with them.

1. Regarding evolution: If evolution means changes in living organisms over
time, then I have no objection to that. If by evolution one means that life evolved randomly and by mere chance, to me that is highly speculative. As far as all life evolving from a common ancestor, I am highly skeptical of this as well, and I believe that the evidence given for a common ancestor could just as reasonably be interpreted as evidence that all life had a common creator.

2. Regarding the young earth/old earth debate, I am undecided. The Bible doesnt even attempt to answer this question. Some speculate that there was a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, ( see "the Gap Theory). This theory is not merely a device to make the Bible agree with science, but there is actually a grammatical reason for the uncertainty, because the Hebrew word which is translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 could actually mean "was" in the sense of existed, or it could also be translated "became". In other words, the clause could be interpreted as...

the earth was without form and void...( materials created first, then fashioned.)
pr
the earth became formless and void...

I lean toward the former, but I realize that the latter may be possible.

3. If point three means that science can only deal with what is observed and testable, then I definitely agree. At the same time, and equally important the other side of the coin, that we must realize that atheism and naturalism as a philosophy, (in other words a system of thought that says that the supernatural does not exist), should not be taught as science, for science cannot disprove the supernatural any more than it can prove it.

4. I strongly and fully agree with line 4

Just my humble opinion.

Boy, we sure did go on some rabbet trails in this thread! What Ive tried to do in all this chattering is merely to show that the Christian faith is a reasonable and a rational faith, even though some make ridiculous claims in the name of God, like the guy that predicted the world was going to end a couple weeks age, I'm going to shut up now, and take the advice of Proverbs 10:19.

Good night.