Adam & Eve's Children - Incest?

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
As for #2, no strawman at all. You obviously despise scientific discovery, so why don't you be consistent? As a matter of fact, your use of a computer and the Internet are a violation of your non-belief in science.

"No strawman at all" and you continue with your strawman! Incredible! Because I oppose bad science and blindly accepting questionable claims of science yet to be proven, that contradict the creation account of the Bible, you launch the following diatribe with no basis:

"Tell you what..since you despise scientific discoveries so much, how about being faithful to that belief. Why not forbid giving your family vaccinations. Why not eschew modern tranportation such as automobiles and airplanes. They work on the principles of that godless science. Why not grow your own food, since science has created crops that are pest resistant by manipulation of their genetic code. That would be much more consistent with your position. To put down science while enjoying its fruits is hypocritical. Be consistant. Live by your beliefs."

It's called argumentum ad baculum = "argument to the stick:" that is, abusing someone instead of reasoning with them. If you cannot debate without the sensationalism, maybe you should stand down.

 

[ColoradoFB]

Quite amazing really...a strawman would be holding up an argument that you are not making. You ARE making the argument that science is not trustworthy, and that your interpretation of the Bible supercedes scientific discovery. If I misunderstand your position, then clarify it! There is no intent to misrepresent your position. I think your own words have clearly laid it out. My position is quite clear...where a literal interpretation of Genesis contradicts solid scientific discovery, Genesis is either:

1. Not trying to convey scientific theory
or
2. To be interpreted allegorically

I see no sensationalism here at all. If I have not correctly understood your position vis-a-vis science, then tell me. Otherwise it appears you are just caught in a web of your own making and cannot find a way to extricate yourself.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by John Wells:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Wells:
I would rather “cling desperately” to the truth, than fall for the lies of secular science!

Science has no agenda, no need to lie.</font>[/QUOTE]As in Piltdown Man, Peking Man, and Java Man? What a joke! </font>[/QUOTE]You forgot my favorite: Ernst Haeckel and his infamous recapitulation theory (ontogeny repeats phylogeny) -- the bogus drawings of a fetus going through the various stages of evolution. People still believe this occurs, even though it was debunked ages ago.

 

[ColoradoFB]

You forgot my favorite: Ernst Haeckel and his infamous recapitulation theory (ontogeny repeats phylogeny) -- the bogus drawings of a fetus going through the various stages of evolution. People still believe this occurs, even though it was debunked ages ago.

Again, science is self-correcting. This has been rejected by modern evolutionary theory.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You forgot my favorite: Ernst Haeckel and his infamous recapitulation theory (ontogeny repeats phylogeny) -- the bogus drawings of a fetus going through the various stages of evolution. People still believe this occurs, even though it was debunked ages ago.

Again, science is self-correcting. This has been rejected by modern evolutionary theory. </font>[/QUOTE]Is that what you call it? Self-correcting? I call it lies and fraud being exposed.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
I see no sensationalism here at all. If I have not correctly understood your position vis-a-vis science, then tell me.

I have told you. You just don't listen well. I can see that your pride prevents you from admitting that going from my challenging you on relying more heavily on science than the Bible to your accusing me of being anti-science is merely a diversion tactic and counter-productive to intelligent debate. Explain how you naturally arrived at my being totally anti-science quoting what I have said!

Back onto subject: I guess you did that because it hurts to think that you prefer your science god over the God of the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible hint or elude to its creation account being allegory or myth. That is simply the only choice you have when you abandon sound biblical doctrine!

I'm still waiting for your answer about the Luke genealogy!

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
Again, science is self-correcting. This has been rejected by modern evolutionary theory.

Science is self-correcting because it needs to be, it is sometimes wrong. The Bible isn't because it is never wrong. Much is made of the fact that the Bible is not a science book, as though that is a profound statement, yet I have never even heard of a Christian who said that it was.

On topic: The reason incest was accpetable in the beginning was because God said that it was, and the reason it is not acceptable now is because God said that it isn't. Everything else is simple conjecture as to the reasons God had for doing what He did. It is fun to speculate and worthwhile to try and understand but, it is not necessary.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Are there any passages in the Bible that ARE alleghory? How do we know that they are alleghory?

 

[ColoradoFB]

Originally posted by John Wells:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
I see no sensationalism here at all. If I have not correctly understood your position vis-a-vis science, then tell me.

I have told you. You just don't listen well. I can see that your pride prevents you from admitting that going from my challenging you on relying more heavily on science than the Bible to your accusing me of being anti-science is merely a diversion tactic and counter-productive to intelligent debate. Explain how you naturally arrived at my being totally anti-science quoting what I have said! </font>[/QUOTE]Oh...back to the ad hominems! I don't listen well, I am prideful. LOL

This in itself is not productive to intelligent debate. Your own words have convicted you of being anti-science. You said you believe the Bible where it is contrary to science. I will accept that you claim you only believe science where it doesn't challenge your pet theological beliefs, however irrational IMO that view may be.

Back onto subject: I guess you did that because it hurts to think that you prefer your science god over the God of the Bible.

Hurts? Hardly. Talk about strawmen! What "science god" have I mentioned? I don't think I said I doubt God, I refute your interpretation of God.

Nowhere does the Bible hint or elude to its creation account being allegory or myth. That is simply the only choice you have when you abandon sound biblical doctrine!

No, it doesn't have to explicitly say "Hey Wells! This is allegory!!" God gave you a reasoning mind and expects it to be used.

I'm still waiting for your answer about the Luke genealogy!

I believe my answer that I am not a biblical literalist was sufficient. The geneologies are meant to show a connection to the ancient patriarchs for theological reasons. The geneology in Matthew is very different than the one in Luke. I know some say, "one is through Joseph and one through Mary". To that I say, to use your favorite word, "RUBBISH!". Nowhere in the Bible does it say this is the explanation.

It is not rational for people today to believe literally in talking snakes & donkeys, dirt men, rib women, a deity who punishes his creation for eating from a tree he planted there and which gave them knowledge of good & evil, and sticks that turn into snakes. Pure mythology, and not that much different than the mythology of other cultures. You can gain many things from these stories, but a literal view of creation is not one of them. The divergent order of creation from Gen 1 to Gen 2 is enough to see that this is a melding of two distinct tellings of these accounts from at least two sources. The stars are not fixed upon a firm dome over the earth (firmament) with floodgates that allow rain to fall to earth. This all reflects an ancient cosmology and not knowledge of a civilization that has travelled to the moon. Which, BTW, should God not have swatted the Apollo capsules down for going even higher toward heaven than the Tower of Babel, to which he took great offense? Oh wait...maybe he DID try to do it to Apollo 13 by blowing up the service module. Never mind.

I suspect in your mind, one cannot be a Christian without being a fundamentalist, Biblical innerrantist. I assure you (if this is the case...don't want to bring up a strawman) that opinion is incorrect.

Bear in mind, I am NOT attacking the Bible...I am presenting a view that it is not to be taken literally in all areas.

So, once again, we have drifted off topic through creation / evolution to Biblical inerrancy.

 

[John Wells]

How sad! How very, very sad!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Are there any passages in the Bible that ARE alleghory? How do we know that they are alleghory?

The context, grammar and style makes it pretty clear when text is meant to be metaphor or allegory. The parables, with one possible exception, are easy to identify as allegory. Metaphor is usually very easy to identify based on style and grammar.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Are there any passages in the Bible that ARE alleghory? How do we know that they are alleghory?

Yes, actually the Bible is quite clear when it is in the allegory/parable mode:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. (Matt 13:24)

He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.
(Luke 6:48)

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)

The Bible is clear when it is giving a parable or an example.

 

[John Wells]

Colorado,

The Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel.

The reason you don't believe God created in six literal days is because you are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, you are admitting that you start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

The fossil record is largely the graveyard of Noah’s flood. All man-made dating methods have been proven to be fallible and downright unreliable. I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!

[ July 07, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

[ColoradoFB]

Originally posted by John Wells:
Colorado,

The Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside!

Of course you think that, but to isolate the Bible is to only do circular logic. The fact is for any idea to be true, it must be falsifiable. I am perfectly willing to amend my understanding at any time the evidence demonstrates I am wrong. From your Biblical-island view, there is no data that you would consider able to falsify your views, nor which would move you from them. You believe DESPITE the evidence merely because you hold one source as being beyond the realm of reason. You have insulated the Bible from the realm of critical examination.

The reason you don't believe God created in six literal days is because you are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old.

Not entirely, but that is one piece of data.

The fossil record is largely the graveyard of Noah’s flood.

Not true. If there were a global flood, the mixing of salt water and fresh water would kill all the lifeforms dependent upon their specific environment. Do you think the ark of Noah had aquariums for every aquatic lifeform?

How did penguins and koalas get to the middle east from Antarctica and Australia and then back? Koalas eat only specific euacalyptus leaves indiginous to Australia. Did they carry them in a cooler? The Noah account is another ancient myth. Can we learn any truth from it? Of course. But the truth has nothing to do with geologic history.

All man-made dating methods have been proven to be fallible and downright unreliable.

Not true. They do have their limits, but when applied correctly, they are quite accurate indeed.

I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!

I have never said you are not entitled to your opinion. Every day I am amazed at how people distrust what God has revealed through his creation and will defend the literal stories written by and for ancient people with a very different cosmology. I take it you also accept the Noah's ark story view of the firmament? The hard, semitransparent dome that had stars affixed to it and water above it. This same firmament had floodgates that opened to release the flood?

No death before Adam? Tsk tsk. The United Negro College Fund had it right with their slogan..."A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

You are entitled to your views, just don't try to pass them off as "creation science", when you honestly know, they are based upon the Bible, hence they are religious views and should not be taught as science in public schools.

OOPS!! Was that the sound of another can of worms being opened?

 

[John Wells]

No, it was the sound of a pitiful pastor with his pathetic theology!

 

[ColoradoFB]

No, it was the sound of a pitiful pastor with his pathetic theology!

Amazing how some fundamentalists cannot engage in a debate without resorting to ad hominems when they run out of arguments or cannot answer the other side's questions.

 

[ColoradoFB]

Archaeologists have made a stunning discovery. Here is a picture of what is apparently the first man & woman and their family. Could this be how Adam & Eve looked?

 

[John Wells]

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)

Yea, your doctrinal view is comical!

 

[ColoradoFB]

John, I have never put anyone here on ignore, but you are close due to your continual name calling.

 

[ColoradoFB]

John,

I might add that saying I "slink"; that I need to "grow up", using scripture to beat me up, insinuating I am a dog or a pig means you have lost what very little credibility you have. I have never called you names, but apparently this is your M.O. You once referenced scholarly debate, but I see that is truly beyond your capabilities. You continually resort to ad hominems, hence you have lost the debate regardless of the merits of anything else you have to say.

You are a rude person, and certainly no gentleman. Not very Christlike at all.