Adam & Eve's Children - Incest?

Hmmm....now that you mention it, the allegory arguments do sound an awful lot like this...

 

fgm...

Murray's Shepherd's Chapel... IS recognized as a cult-like organization feel free to see the Watchman.org site.

Brother...we aren't attacking you... Just Murray's crap which has seeped into the space between your ears.

SURE there's some WEIRD stuff about Satan/Serpent/Shining One. SURE there's weird stuff going on around the time of the Ark AND Goliath.

Murray gives a fairly well thought out explanation. Mainline denominational Pastors don't usually touch the topic of Nephilim and Satan's Seed.

They're definitely in the bible.

"Pastor" Murray (he refuses to provide his educational background-- should be a red flag right there) loves to dwell on the subject. Personally I think the man preaches about Satan more than he does Jesus.

Pastor Murray also loves to tell folks NOT to go to church. But please make a Pilgrimage to his in Gravette, Arkansas. Now THERE'S consistency.

The church is built around his personality...much like Herbert W. Armstrong. When he's gone... Shepherd's Chapel folks will fragment...some will repent and other's will go off the deep end, and a portion will go right on believing til they croak out.

Steve

 

This is false and therefore your contention that scientists have no need to lie is without merit. Evolutionary science has an agenda to preserve the modernistic/naturalistic/materialistic philosophy. Without this philosophical presupposition, "God made it that way" defeats any and every explaination given from a naturalistic bias. Because, if God indeed made it and He is indeed omnipotent then all discussion of 'how' are purely rhetorical. If the God of the Bible made it and the Bible is God-breathed and therefore the standard of all creation then one must prove by the Bible that Genesis is allegorical. If this cannot be proven then any scientific explaination contradictory to a literal interpretation fails on first hand proof provided by the Creator Himself.

This is patently false. Experiments are designed with results in mind. When an experiment fails, someone in applied science will change the conditions until the desired result occurs. In evolution theory, it works much the same way. A result is expected and conditions (including basic, unproven assumptions) are changed until the desired outcome is produced. The difference is that applied science has observable, practical proof. If evolution were ever catagorically proven to be a practical possibility, it can never be proven an historical, observable, practical fact.

Evolution is no less guilty. Just seemingly more flexible. As long as the explaination is naturalistic, it can be considered as scientific truth.

We start with the notion that Genesis is literally true because nowhere in scripture is it ever indicated otherwise and it is consistently affirmed that later writers and characters including Jesus refer to Genesis in a literal sense. Once the Bible is accepted as the standard for truth then the expectation is that explainations of natural phenomenon will not disagree with "Truth".

There are many possibilities not the least of which is a depraved, sinful, self-egrandizing nature.

No applied science relies on evolution to be true. NONE!!!

If evolution is false, would you expect your car not to start...

 

Please falsify God or else explain why you believe an idea that is false.

Can you not see yourself here? What restriction have you applied to what constitutes evidence? You require an explaination to be naturalistic then adjust your views on the Bible accordingly. We require an explaination to be biblical then adjust our explainations of nature accordingly.

I think you are wrong but since I cannot prove you wrong catagorically my objective is simply to show you and others that you are just as driven by bias as those with whom you disagree.

The bottom line is this. There is no means by which to explain pre-historic events by naturalistic means with 100% certainty. Even within the realm of naturalism, there will always be alternatives and the possibility that a new discovery will change the accepted explaination.

True and false. False because- The evidence can be explained with acceptance of creation and a literal 6-days in a reasonable fashion. True because we accept a Source of all truth (and the universe for that matter) which lies well outside the realm of human reason. Further we believe that He has provided a revelation of Himself by a divine act and that it would represent a violation of His character for Him to inspire an allegorical story and not indicate that it was anything but literal.

You have insulated your adherence to modernistic philosophy from biblical proof.

 

Once again, I am amazed at the ludicrous statements that issue from the minds of fundamentalists. First of all, I will not begin to go point by point through these total misrepresentation of science. Secondly, once someone holds to a literal view of Genesis despite evidence, they have renounced reason and it is pointless to continue the conversation.

Third, and probably most important, I said a page or two back to table the evolution issue and assume it to be false and instead show me evidence to support a literal view. The answers have been:

1. The Bible is literally true because it says so in the Bible (circular logic)

2. If observations contradict a literal Genesis, then Genesis is right despite any evidence

3. Continued diatribes misrepresenting evolutionary theory, DESPITE THE FACT THAT I SAID LET'S CONCEDE THAT POINT. Obviously, with no evidence to support a literal view of Genesis, the only thing to do is continue to attack evolution despite the debating point of saying assume it is wrong.

Therefore I see this is pointless and will let you folks continue your rants on this thread without my participation. I'll look at other threads...you folks knock yourself out on this one.

 

Just one more parting note...

Everytime the church has tried to place Biblical cosmology above science, it has been proven wrong. Bruno was burned at the stake for it. Galileo nearly was. Yet both have been proven correct. Biblical literalists have always been drug along kicking and screaming against discoveries they feel contradict their pet view of the Bible. I am really amazed that this is even an issue of discussion.

 

That's just a token quote - your whole post was excellent. Bravo.

 

Hmmm... I noticed you completely ignored my answers, which I gave twice.

 

>>>>>>There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. <<<<<<<

If you think that there is a conflict between evolution and thermodynamics, I can assure you that experts on thermodynamics do not agree with you. See the following site, where three authors of thermodynamics textbooks voice their opinions.

http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-internet.html

 

... called poisoning the well... it is often followed by evasion.

Case in point of evasion. I am not sure what you think was "misrepresentation" but if you think that evolutionary science operates outside of a naturalistic philosophical worldview then please illustrate your contention. They make a basketball court out of science and declare anything that appeals to something other than a naturalistic explaination is "out of bounds." Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that evolutionary science is governed by a philosophy.

You create a false dichotomy. I do not hold to a "literal view of Genesis despite evidence". The evidence is clearly there. The Bible teaches the attributes of a God that could create the universe in 6 billion years, 6 days, or 6 milliseconds. There is no renunciation of reason involved- simply an acceptance of an explaination of the evidence governed by creative possibilities found in an omnipotent Creator.

No. It is literal where context, form, and cross-reference demonstrate that it is. There are sections of scripture that are clearly not literal and a few like in Revelation that are debatable in many places.

But Genesis is a section of scripture that is treated as literal throught the Old and New Testaments.

The Bible self-declares its inspiration by God. It is a matter of faith but I do trust Him to not mislead us by slipping allegory in without indicating it.

That's the thing though. "Observations" do not contradict a literal Genesis. It is the interpretations of the evidences in nature that often contradict scripture. No one observed anything from a thinking/reasoning standpoint until man came along. The oldest communications we find support creation. People who either communicated directly with God such as Moses or people before Moses who were in historical position to have seen some of the events affirm creation.

The support for evolution comes from interpretations of data, not first hand observation.

BTW, the proofs for the Bible's text being essentially unchanged since written are tangible and more overwhelming. It was written by people who claimed special visitations from God as well as being moved by God to write. Either the writers were completely delusional or else we have a book that should be taken as written.

The evidence is context and by the lack of any indication that what was written was by any measure non-literal. Paul, for instance, in Romans directly compares Adam to Christ. Are the Bible's declarations of Christ allegory? Aren't people arguing that they are since there is no naturalistic reconciliation of literal miracles and a literal death, burial, resurrection, and ascension? Contextually, there is no more proof that Genesis is allegory than that Luke is allegory.

When speaking to others, if you say something in a way that you know will be taken literally, it is encumbant upon you to declare "allegorically speaking..." or "figuratively speaking..." or to make some indication that your words are not literal. We don't library fiction and non-fiction books together without labeling that declares the difference with the hope that the reader will somehow figure it out. It is a very unreasonable position to think God inspired an allegorical tale in Genesis and gave the object of His message no indication of it.

Are you evading? If you cannot reasonably and respectfully answer our "rants" then what does that say about who is doing the ranting?

 

Bravo, Scott J.

 

I have been reading Genesis and have found several references to the "Sun rising" or the "sun Setting" or the "sun coming up" or the "sun going down." It has been quite edifying to me. When I was in school, my humanist science teachers taught me that "in fact" the earth orbited around the sun and turned on its axis, and that the sun actually didn't rise or set, but it was only the movement of the earth. I, of course, now reject this false science and embrace God's truth as set forth in this scripture.

Because, if God wanted us to think and discover for ourselves, God would have actually given us inquisitive, creative and intelligent minds.

Sorry for the sarcasm. But I just couldn't bear the persecution of Colorado any longer. Its beyond me that someone who calls him or herself a follower of Jesus Christ can belittle someone else's obviously deeply personal and hard won relationship with God.

But I'm sure I'm in for it now...

 

You know, Bev, our crazy weather men and women on TV also talk about the sun rising and setting. They must be awfully ignorant, don't you think?

They even talk about the moon rising and setting, and waxing and waning -- as though it were actually changing size!

What's this world coming to?

 

They only retain that phrasing for historical reasons, because thats what people used to really believe, and the phrases never went out of popular speech when the truth was learned.

 

Nonsense. The sun appears to rise, and therefore the best way to communicate what happens during the moment the sun "rises" is to say "the sun is rising".

Perhaps you think we speak in entirely scientific terms even if doing so communicates nothing about the event.

"Gosh, Harry, isn't that the most beautiful earth turn you've ever seen?"

"Sure, Susie, the stars are beautiful near the horizon."

"No, no, Harry, I'm not talking about the stars!"

"Oh, you mean how the wind changed a while ago because the earth turned and the heat patterns varied?"

"No! Oh you men just don't understand romance!!!"

"Sorry Susie, what do you mean, then? The sun's position as the earth turns? The moon's orbit as varied by the turning of the earth? What?"

"That's it. I would prefer never to see you again, Harry."

Join us again tomorrow for another episode of "As the Earth Turns And Nobody Knows What It Means."

 

Parents also make reference to Santa Claus knowing he is not a real person.

More to the point . . .God is teaching theological truths, not a science lesson. Doesn't make them liars. Adam & Eve are used for illustrative purposes. </font>[/QUOTE]God is teaching a "history lesson" when the genealogies and the order of creation is listed in Genesis.