Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Revmitchell]

Fact is always truth or it is never fact. You cannot have one without the other. If what is proposed to be fact is in error then it was never fact to begin with. Where do liberals get this nonsense from.

 

[Johnv]

Thanks. I don't agree at all. I think you are opening the door for all sorts supposed "discrepancies" about other issues that you would consider important. But I was looking for a specific answer and you gave it to me.

Thanks my brother. I respect your position and understand the concern. In all honesty, there indeed always lies that possibility. One choice we have is to deny that those deviations in account exist. Since they indeed exist, that position can (although it doesn't have to) lead to a problem. Another choice is to acknowlege that the deviations exist, and understand that those deviations do not detract from 100% scriptural truth or authority. This is the position I take. Like the first position, it not devoid of problems as well, since it requires a fair level of discernment. The last position is to cite the deviations and conclde that scripture is not 100% truth. That position is unacceptible to most Christians, and would qualify as apostacy.

 

[Revmitchell]

So, let me get this straight. Your position is: one person saw a red robe, and another a purple, and that isn't a discrepancy in facts.

You misrepresent the truth:

πορφυροῦς John 19:2
porphurous
por-foo-rooce'
From G4209; purpureal, that is, bluish red: - purple.

κόκκινος Matthew 27:28
kokkinos
kok'-kee-nos
From G2848 (from the kernel shape of the insect); crimson colored: - scarlet (colour, coloured).

It can legitimately be used or described either way and be correct.Unless of course you are looking for errors.

 

[Tom Bryant]

For me to allow that there are small ways that God didn't protect His Word from error means that I can't trust Him in the big things either. Your way makes history, science and any other realm of human study the arbiter of the Bible. I'll take my chances and stand with the Bible as being the Word of God without any mixture of error.

And with that, I'm out of this discussion.

 

[Darron Steele]

But I do know that liberals like to create discrepancies where none exist...

I do not "create" discrepancies. It is a fact that one passage says Jesus' robe was red while another says it's purple. It is a fact that one passage says there was one angel at the tomb while another says it was two. It is a fact that one passages has the stone rolled away before people arrive, while another has the stone in place after people arrive. By your own definition, if you deny those passages say what they do, then you deny scripture, which makes you the liberal, not me. It is the conservative position that says scripture is true, despite those passages.

Wow! Once again, you are trying to convince a Bible believer that he should not believe parts of Scripture.

In fact, you are even alleging that he is required to reject parts of Scripture if he is to believe the Bible. If he does not reject those parts, then he becomes the "liberal" who does not believe the Bible.

It is amazing the lengths you will go on this crusade of yours. I have to admit: you are well trained by those who have enlisted your services in trying to hijack the church away from Scripture.

It is outside the real world. A Bible believer does not become a Bible skeptic by believing the Bible. Despite your claim, you are not a Bible believer if you do not believe the Bible. You totally have reality backwards.

Will you please tell me where these discrepancies are in the bible so I will know which part of the bible to believe and which part to cut out of my bible.I dont want a bible full of errors.

Thank you so smart.

Although your post was intended to be belittling and insulting, I've lmentioned a few of them earlier in the thread.

If you require an inerrant scripture to be devoid of them, then yes, you can either cut them out of yoru bible, or you can keep them in and adopt the concept that scripture is inerrant despite such discrepancies.

All I can say is apostate and get your stinking feet out of my drinking water....

Amen Pilgrim2009.

I am amused somewhat by the Bible detractor's comparisons of Bible believers with King James Only advocates. The KJV was completed centuries after the Bible was written. Jesus Christ and the New Testament-era Christians were not speaking of the KJV when they were treating Scripture with due respect.

A difference between the Bible detractor and someone like me is interesting: I believe the KJV has errors in it, and you know what? I do not claim to be a `King James Bible believer.' Although I am not going to go on a proverbial crusade with that view -- i.e. not be a detractor -- I have the honesty and integrity to
a) not pretend to believe premises that I actually deny, and
b) admit my real view when relevant.

I will not say that what the KJV has is `not necessarily accurate' and simultaneously claim to believe the KJV is inerrant. To make such a claim would a bald-faced lie.

Yet that is exactly what one Bible detractor is doing with regard to Scripture.
He is
a) aggressively promoting that the Bible may not always "line up" with "facts," and
b) trying to discourage us from believing the Bible to be true in all details, and while doing both of the above, he claims to be a Bible believer!

 

[Johnv]

You misrepresent the truth:

Sorry, but you're incorrect. In Greek, Kokkinos and porphurous are two differnt colors. Kokkinos means dark red. Porphurous means purple. They are not interchangeable. The English translators correctly translate John 19:2 as "purple" and Matthew 27:28 as "scarlet". The words are not interchangeable, and there's no error in translation here. The fact that two different colors in Koine Greek are noted does not detract from scriptural inerrancy at all.

 

[Darron Steele]

Sorry, but you're incorrect. In Greek, Kokkinos and porphurous are two differnt colors. Kokkinos means dark red. Porphurous means purple. They are not interchangeable. The English translators correctly translate John 19:2 as "purple" and Matthew 27:28 as "scarlet". The words are not interchangeable, and there's no error in translation here. The fact that two different colors in Koine Greek are noted does not detract from scriptural inerrancy at all.

Correct about your last statement, assuming you are correct about the Greek or not lying.

Both texts are true and accurate about the color/s of the robe/s. If two different colors are used in descriptions, then there must be some sort of reconciliation.

After all, to a REAL Bible believer, because the Bible says it was so, it must be 100% factually accurate.

To a Bible skeptic or Bible detractor, it is a reason to believe not all of Scripture's attempts at accounts are factually accurate. To a Bible detractor, it is something to be pointed out in hopes Bible believers will adopt similar views.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sorry, but you're incorrect. In Greek, Kokkinos and porphurous are two differnt colors. Kokkinos means dark red. Porphurous means purple. They are not interchangeable. The English translators correctly translate John 19:2 as "purple" and Matthew 27:28 as "scarlet". The words are not interchangeable, and there's no error in translation here. The fact that two different colors in Koine Greek are noted does not detract from scriptural inerrancy at all.

Not sure what your version of inerrancy is the factual inerrancy or the Dilday version. Either way I stand on the correct side of this. It is not about interchangeable it is about a description of the event based on the eye witness and to say something is scarlett or purple makes no difference as the two colors are so close.

 

[Johnv]

Once again, you are trying to convince a Bible believer that he should not believe parts of Scripture.

I've not once said that. I'm actually saying the opposite. I'm saying that all of scripture is to be believed; deviations in account are not a reason to disbelieve scripture.

In fact, you are even alleging that he is required to reject parts of Scripture if he is to believe the Bible. If he does not reject those parts, then he becomes the "liberal" who does not believe the Bible.

Actually that's his assertion, not mine. My assertion has consistently been that there is no need to reject any of scripture to believe it.

...you are well trained by those who have enlisted your services in trying to hijack the church away from Scripture.

Yet another false accusation.

Despite your claim, you are not a Bible believer if you do not believe the Bible. You totally have reality backwards.... aggressively promoting that the Bible may not always "line up" with "facts," and... trying to discourage us from believing the Bible to be true in all details, and while doing both of the above, he claims to be a Bible believer!

So what you're saying is that a bible believer is only a believe if he believes Jesus' robe was both purple and scarlett, that the stone was rolled away both before and after woman arrived, and that there were both one and two angels, as well as one and two men at the tomb.

Both texts are true and accurate about the color/s of the robe/s. If two different colors are used in descriptions, then there must be some sort of reconciliation.

Yes, the reconciliation is that Jesus was given a robe whose color denotes royalty, for the purpose of his claim to royalty being mocked. It's consistent with scriptural truth, scriptral inerrancy, and consistent with both accounts.

It is not about interchangeable it is about a description of the event based on the eye witness and to say something is scarlett or purple makes no difference as the two colors are so close.

Uh, that's EXACTLY my position. That the color itself makes no difference.

 

[Revmitchell]

John so long as you incorrectly use discrepancy and divide fact from truth this will discredit your position.

So I ask do you hold to inerrancy of scripture in word or simply purpose as Dilday wrote about?

 

[Darron Steele]

...

So what you're saying is that a bible believer is only a believe if he believes Jesus' robe was both purple and scarlett, that the stone was rolled away both before and after woman arrived, and that there were both one and two angels, as well as one and two men at the tomb.

If that is what the text says, then YES!

Somehow, there must be reconciliations. Maybe they put two robes on Jesus at different times. It does not matter what the reconciliations are: both texts are to be believed.

You like pointing out apparent discrepancies in Scripture. Then you have the audacity to claim that I should not believe both texts: then you claim that you hold "all of scripture is to be believed" -- liar.

Yes, the reconciliation is that Jesus was given a robe whose color denotes royalty, for the purpose of his claim to royalty being mocked. It's consistent with scriptural truth, scriptral inerrancy, and consistent with both accounts.

Uh, that's EXACTLY my position. That the color itself makes no difference.

Yet are you willing to assert that the text saying the robe was red was true, and that the text saying the robe is purple is also true?

I doubt it.

 

[Johnv]

So I ask do you hold to inerrancy of scripture in word or simply purpose as Dilday wrote about?

I hold to scriptural inerrancy as Scripture requires its beleivers to do.

 

[Revmitchell]

I hold to scriptural inerrancy as Scripture requires its beleivers to do.

There is not a more non-answer in all the world.

 

[Johnv]

Somehow, there must be reconciliations. Maybe they put two robes on Jesus at different times.

Maybe. That's possible. But if one hold to scrict intpretation, there was only one trial, and only one robe. I guarantee you, if I raised such an idea of there being two robes, I'd have been called a liberal.

It does not matter what the reconciliations are: both texts are to be believed.

I've neer said anythign other than that. Your standard, however, requires that onyl one robe was used, because that's what scripture said, so it must be believed.

Then you have the audacity to claim that I should not believe both texts: then you claim that you hold "all of scripture is to be believed" -- liar.

Never said that at all. I've been saying just the opposite. I've consistently said that two differente accounts denoting two different colors does not preclude one from believing scripture, nor does it detract from scripture as true.

Yet are you willing to assert that the text saying the robe was red was true, and that the text saying the robe is purple is also true?

Of course. I believe both accounts. The fact that the colors are different does not detract from believing scripture, not does it detract from scripture as true.

 

[Marcia]

Re the color of Jesus' robe:

According to A.T. Robertson, there were various shades of purple and scarlet in the first century and it was not easy to distinguish the colors or tints (1997). In fact, the ancients (especially the Romans) used the term purple when speaking of various shades of red (McGarvey, 1875, p. 361; Barnes, 1997). Consequently, these different colors sometimes would be called by the same name.

As one can see, there is no discrepancy in the Gospel narratives concerning the color of the robe Jesus wore. Just like others of their day, the Gospel writers simply used the terms scarlet and purple interchangeably.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/559

Or, the robe had both colors:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Most responses to this apparent contradiction argue that scarlet and purple refer to the same color. However, the words Mark and John use for "purple" and the word Matthew uses for "scarlet" are used together in Revelation to signify separate colors: "The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet" (Rev 17:4, John's word for purple), "purple, silk and scarlet cloth" (18:12, Mark's word for purple), "dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet" (18:16, John's word for purple).

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The most likely solution to this apparent contradiction is that the robe was both purple and scarlet (e.g. it was striped or patterned in some way). It's also possible that more than one article of clothing was involved, and that one was purple while the other was scarlet.[/FONT]

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_robe.html

I noticed when I googled this, that many skeptic sites (sites that are out to attack the Bible any way they can), bring this issue up, as if it invalidates God's word.

 

[Revmitchell]

I noticed when I googled this, that many skeptic sites (sites that are out to attack the Bible any way they can), bring this issue up, as if it invalidates God's word.

And of course it is being perpetuated on this site under the guise of an inerrantist who will not elaborate on what he believes that to be.

 

[Johnv]

I noticed when I googled this, that many skeptic sites (sites that are out to attack the Bible any way they can), bring this issue up, as if it invalidates God's word.

I didn't do that. I brought it up to demonstrate how discrepancies in account don't invalidate God's Word.

And of course it is being perpetuated on this site under the guise of an inerrantist who will not elaborate on what he believes that to be.

On the contrary. I've made it clear over and over again that I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and that discrepancies in different accounts don't detract from scripture as 100% truth.

 

[Revmitchell]

I didn't do that. I brought it up to demonstrate how discrepancies in account don't invalidate God's Word.

On the contrary. I've made it clear over and over again that I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and that discrepancies in different accounts don't detract from scripture as 100% truth.

Is it inerrant in word or purpose like Dilday wrote about.

 

[Darron Steele]

Maybe. That's possible. But if one hold to scrict intpretation, there was only one trial, and only one robe. I guarantee you, if I raised such an idea of there being two robes, I'd have been called a liberal.

I've neer said anythign other than that. Your standard, however, requires that onyl one robe was used, because that's what scripture said, so it must be believed....

Hold on, Mr.

It is bad enough that you lie about your position.

Do not lie about mine, nor tell me what my position "requires" me to believe. My "standard" is that if the Bible says it happened just that way with those details as so, it happened just that way with those details as so.

I do not go diving into my Bible looking for reconciliations every time a Bible detractor like you harped on an alleged discrepancy. If I did that, you would oppose the reconciliation/s or go find another alleged discrepancy ad nauseam.

I do not know what potential reconciliations there are for the two accounts and I do not care that much. I do care that if one text says the robe it is describing was or had purple, it was or had purple, and if another text says the robe it describes was or had red, it was or had red.

You said it does not matter what colors they were. Well, yeah it does. The point of those texts is to tell us events that happened and details about them.

Here is one of your posts numerous posts where you oppose believing the Bible:

..
If you hold the belief that the facts in scripture must line up as a prerequisite for scripture bring true, then you as a believer have a problem, because in the examples I cited, the facts cited in scripture do not necessarily line up. ...

This was not your first post along that line.

You accuse me of making false accusations of you. Any honest reader can go back through this thread and see that your point of all this was that the narrative accounts of Scripture do "not necessarily line up" with "facts." Your posts have tried to discourage us from believing the Bible in all details. All the while, you insist that you are a Bible believer. I did not write your posts -- you did, and I and others pointed out what was going on. I do not make false accusations of you; as someone who has done some study of church history, I am well aware of your kind, and what sort of agenda you have.

I have no problem with Christians or other people who do not believe the Bible if they
a) have come to those conclusions out of sincere honesty,
b) do not try to spread Bible skepticism in the church,
c) do not try to hijack the church toward inappropriate agendas out of harmony with God's written Word,
d) are honest about what they believe when it is relevant.
If this described you, we would disagree but there would be no problem. What I have a problem with is people who are detractors of Scripture but masquerade as Bible believers -- such as yourself.

 

[Johnv]

Hold on, Mr. It is bad enough that you lie about your position. Do not lie about mine.

I've never once lied about my position. My position has consistently been that scripture is 100% truth, and that any deviations or discrepancy in account do not detract from scripture as 100% truth.

I do not go diving into my Bible looking for reconciliations every time a Bible detractor like you harped on an alleged discrepancy.

A bible detractor is one who claims that scripture is not truth. I've never once said that. In fact, it is those in your camp who said that I must reject scripture as truth if there is a descrepancy. I've been saying the opposite: That a discrepancy in a scriptural account does not detract from scripture as 100% truth.

I do not know what potential reconciliations there are for the two accounts and I do not care that much.

Neither do I. I've said over and over again.

What I have a problem with is people who are detractors of Scripture and masquerade as Bible believers -- such as you.

To assert that scripture is 100% truth without exception is now a detraction of scripture. Go figure.