• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Should Christians Hold to any form of Theistic Evolution then?

cjab

Member
Can you tell me how the human eye evolved? See post #75 if this confuses you.
Given a timeframe of circa 500-1000 million years, anything is possible. Wiki gives some indicators of how the evolution of the eye might have happened.

By the way, I just read the article you linked to, and it does not prove evolution. The guppy stayed a guppy, the Anole lizards stayed anole lizards, and so on. For evolution to be true, the change has to be into a new species. Change within a species is normal, and accepted by all creationist scientists, such as my NASA scientist friend Dr. K.
In the timeframe of 100 years, the most you will see are genetic changes intra-species, not inter-species changes. Alone, it proves the principle of evolution. Extend the timeframe to hundreds of thousands, and millions of years and expect to see inter-species mutation.

Edited in: that website you linked to was kind of a "bait and switch" thing! They advertised proof for evolution, but then gave you something else. I'm sure you'll be ready for that next time, right? ;) Oh, and by the way, the article is anonymous, as all the articles there are, so nobody can correct their error. I don't allow my students to quote from anonymous sources in their research papers because of that lack of accountability. And before you ask, my real name is John R. Himes, as I've said numerous times on the BB, so no, I'm never anonymous.
The article isn't anonymous. It was written by Kelly McSweeney. One of the scientific articles on which it is based, is found here. I see no intention to deceive anyone. Please don't use underhand tactics yourself to deceive. I see no misinformation.

YEC is I believe a synthetic cult based on a contrarian predisposition, rather than on a respect-for-others predisposition. The credulity that it demands to take seriously today surpasses the credulity of evolution as a scientific process by a very wide margin. By equating faith in God with faith in YEC, its proponents are inviting judgement, as no apostle ever made such an equation between faith and science as is made by YEC.
 
Last edited:

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
Keil and Delitzsch on Gen 1:6

"There is nothing in these poetical similes to warrant the idea that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass [or dome], a σιδήρεον, or χάλκεον or πολύχαλκον, such as Greek poets describe. The רקיע (rendered Veste by Luther, after the στερέωα of the lxx and firmamentum of the Vulgate) is called heaven in Genesis 1:8, i.e., the vault of heaven, which stretches out above the earth. The waters under the firmament are the waters upon the globe itself; those above are not ethereal waters."

Similar remarks are made by K&D vis-a-vis Gen 1:8. The initial issue seems to be that you insist on interpreting Gen 1:1-11 by reference to Greek secular "science." Sure there are plenty of commentaries that refer to it, but the question is, why is Greek secular science relevant to what antedated it? Moses antedated ancient Greek classical civilization by circa 500 years.

And if you allege that Gen 1:1-11 is not "Moses" but merely a Grecian or Babylonian-inspired redaction, are you not insinuating that Genesis isn't inspired?

The word "dome" doesn't appear in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and similarly doesn't appear in many other commentaries. How can it be so justified as to become the basis for your translation?
You are apparently quoting from pages 52-53 in the English translation of the 10-volume commentary on the Bible, Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte Testament written in German by Johann Friedrich Karl Keil and Franz Julius Delitzsch and originally published in the years 1866-1877. Keil wrote on Genesis through Esther and Jeremiah to Malachi; Delitzsch wrote on Job to Isaiah. In the English Edition that you are quoting from, the part on the Pentateuch was translated by James Martin. Delitzsch also wrote separately a 2-volume commentary on Genesis in German, Commentar über die Genesis. This work is far more detailed and accurate than what Keil wrote. The first edition was published in 1852, and a fourth edition in 1866. A fifth and final edition translated by Sophia Taylor was published in 1888. It is a hard copy of this edition that I have here in my study. On pages 85-86, Delitzsch expressly contradict the ridiculously incorrect statements made by Keil.
 

cjab

Member
You are apparently quoting from pages 52-53 in the English translation of the 10-volume commentary on the Bible, Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte Testament written in German by Johann Friedrich Karl Keil and Franz Julius Delitzsch and originally published in the years 1866-1877. Keil wrote on Genesis through Esther and Jeremiah to Malachi; Delitzsch wrote on Job to Isaiah. In the English Edition that you are quoting from, the part on the Pentateuch was translated by James Martin. Delitzsch also wrote separately a 2-volume commentary on Genesis in German, Commentar über die Genesis. This work is far more detailed and accurate than what Keil wrote. The first edition was published in 1852, and a fourth edition in 1866. A fifth and final edition translated by Sophia Taylor was published in 1888. It is a hard copy of this edition that I have here in my study. On pages 85-86, Delitzsch expressly contradict the ridiculously incorrect statements made by Keil.
I am reading Sophia Taylor's translation of 1889. First, I cannot perceive what contradiction on pp. 85-86 you are referring to. "Dome" and "solid structures" are not invoked by Delitzsch, to my mind. Secondly, I don't accept Delitzsch is necessarily an advance on Keil, for the following reasons.

Delitzsch seems signed up to the authenticity of the higher criticism. This was much in vogue in Germany, in that era. His "Introduction" tends to affirm more value placed on the "criticism" than on the inspiration of the text. He writes at p. 1 of his Introduction:

"CRITICISM at present fixes the date of the main bulk of the Pentateuch, the so-called Priest Codex, together with the Law of Holiness, which has so striking a relation to Ezekiel, at the time of the captivity and the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah. The Book of Deuteronomy however presupposes the primary legislation contained in Ex. xix.-xxiv. and the work of the Jehovistic historian. Hence we cannot avoid relegating the origin of certain component parts of the Pentateuch to the middle ages of the kings ; and, if we continue our critical analysis, we find ourselves constrained to go back still farther, perhaps even to the times of the Judges, and thus to tread the soil of a hoar antiquity without incurring the verdict of lack of scientific knowledge. Even those who insist upon transferring the conception of the account of the creation in Gen. i. 1-ii. 4, and of the primaeval histories, which are of a form homogeneous with it, to the post-exilian period, do not, for the most part, deny that they are based upon subjects and materials handed down from long past ages. For the most part, we repeat ; for there are even some who think that these primaeval histories, e.g. the account of the Deluge, were not brought with them by the Terahites at their departure from Chaldea, but first obtained by the exiles in Babylon from Babylonian sources, and remodelled in Israelite fashion. Under these circumstances, and especially on the threshold of Genesis, — that book of origins and primaeval history, — it will be a suitable preparation for our critical problems to attain to historical certainty as to how far the art of writing reaches back among the people to whom the authorship of Genesis belongs, and as to the date at which the beginnings of literature may be found or expected among them."

Then he discourses on the origin of writing and at the bottom of page 3 of his Introduction he states:

"Hence the patriarchal ancestral families of Israel do not as yet manifest a knowledge of writing, which first appears among the people on their departure from Egypt. The Pentateuchal history itself impresses upon us the fact that Israel learned the art of writing in Egypt, where the possession of this art reaches far back in pre-Mosaic times. For the exodus took place under Menephthes (per the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, he ruled from 1213 until 1203 BC ), the fourth Pharaoh of the 19th dynasty, and Herodotus already saw the pyramid belonging to the 1st Manethonian dynasty covered with hieroglyphics."

Let's assess this info. against modern archaeology. IMO, it is discountable. (1) Abraham was a prince of Ur, a city at the centre of the Sumerian / Akkadian civilization. Hence he would certainly have known how to write. Joseph also, who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. There is nothing to suggest that the Hebrews didn't retain the knowledge of writing throughout their stay in Egypt, and may even have taught it to the Egyptians. Sumerian writing dates back to 3300BC, at least. So that consigns Delitzsch's statement "the patriarchal ancestral families of Israel do not as yet manifest a knowledge of writing" as rubbish. (2) The date of the exodus was more likely the 15th century BC, or earlier. The 19th dynasty date is completely wrong, a legacy of past error. Ramses II had nothing to do with the exodus and wasn't the pharaoh of oppression. (3) The articles of the higher criticism, the distinction between the J" source (Yahwist) using "Jehovah" and the "E" source (Elohist) using "Elohim", were a 19th/20th century fad, and today are credited by few persons as historical fact. As one commentator has remarked "The presuppositions and beliefs of the Bible writers and of the critics were absolutely contradictory. To maintain that the modern view is a development and advance upon the Biblical view, is absurd. No presupposition can develop a presupposition which contradicts and nullifies it. To say that the critical position and the Biblical position, or the traditional evangelical view which is the same as the Biblical, are reconcilable, is the most fatuous folly and delusion."

I suggest that if you credit Delitzsch as an advance on Keil, then what you're advocating is that the critical view should transcend the evangelical. I put it to you that the evangelical and higher criticism POVs are actually irreconcilable. But as I say, in respect of Gen 1:6-9, I don't know what point you're making.
 
Given a timeframe of circa 500-1000 million years, anything is possible. Wiki gives some indicators of how the evolution of the eye might have happened.
No, given a timeframe of 500-1000 million years "anything" is not possible. If it cannot happen, it will not happen no matter how long you give the process. An impossibility is an impossibility regardless of how many times you attempt it. The importance of 500-1000 million years is the magic wand to make you extrapolate a process and imagine how it might have happened.
Much like the evolution of the eye, you have to imagine how it "might" occur.
In the timeframe of 100 years, the most you will see are genetic changes intra-species, not inter-species changes.
And, inasmuch as that is all we ever see, there is no justification for extrapolation beyond the reasonable limits of what can be observed. Beyond that, you are not in any realm of science and you simply have a post-modern creation myth.
Alone, it proves the principle of evolution. Extend the timeframe to hundreds of thousands, and millions of years and expect to see inter-species mutation.
It proves only what creationists have accepted for ages and is observable. I know that chihuahuas and great danes are related. They began as dogs and they remain dogs. The differences are extreme (and somewhat superficial) but, there are limits.
There is no scientifically rigorous reason to imagine that they are related to the banana.
I do not then "expect" inter-species mutation. I "expect" intra-species mutations.
If I already assumed the Darwinian myth, then, given the magic wand of 1000 million years I might imagine it.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Given a timeframe of circa 500-1000 million years, anything is possible. Wiki gives some indicators of how the evolution of the eye might have happened.
This is a typical evolutionist answer. Throw a few 100 million years at the problem and it will go away. Sorry, that is an inadequate answer, and that is why so many Christians are creationists nowadays. All evolution can answer with is "millions of years." But that is not science. Science demands observation, and no one has seen anything evolving, nor can they.

But the problems still remains. You can't whitewash it away. Again, none of the individual parts of the eye can stand alone. Why would a cornea develop, for example? It is useless by itself. In the Wiki article (anonymous again, so college students are not allowed to use that as a source), the various parts of the eye just show up, somehow. There is no explanation of how each part, useless individually, developed.

But the Wiki article gives some great quotes, such as this one: "In 1802, philosopher William Paley called it a miracle of 'design.'" Exactly. A design by an infinitely intelligent Person, our God.
In the timeframe of 100 years, the most you will see are genetic changes intra-species, not inter-species changes. Alone, it proves the principle of evolution. Extend the timeframe to hundreds of thousands, and millions of years and expect to see inter-species mutation.
That's the best you have? First of all, changes intra-species and inter-species are completely different subjects. Again, the article proves absolutely nothing about inter-species evolution. The data is simply not there.

And you say "expect to see interspecies mutation." Why and how? This is the vagueness with which evolution seeks to prove its "science." But when evolution departs from cold, hard, facts, it ceases to be science.
The article isn't anonymous. It was written by Kelly McSweeney. One of the scientific articles on which it is based, is found here. I see no intention to deceive anyone. Please don't use underhand tactics yourself to deceive. I see no misinformation.
I didn't claim "misinformation." I claimed anonymity, and in the academic world where I work, that is unacceptable. At any rate, thanks for setting me straight. In reading the article on its webpage, I saw no sign that Kelly wrote it.

Now, in my entire life I have not been accused of being underhanded, and certainly not in my many years here on the BB. Pray tell, what "underhanded" tactic did I use, and how did I try to deceive you? I simply noted that the article was not sourced (and it was not on the webpage). In the academic world we must have sources. I give failing grades when I get no sources from the student.
YEC is I believe a synthetic cult based on a contrarian predisposition, rather than on a respect-for-others predisposition. The credulity that it demands to take seriously today surpasses the credulity of evolution as a scientific process by a very wide margin. By equating faith in God with faith in YEC, its proponents are inviting judgement, as no apostle ever made such an equation between faith and science as is made by YEC.
A "cult"? Are you kidding me? That's ridiculous. YEC does not fit any possible definition of a cult.

And I have made no comments inviting such a response. It looks to me like you are the judgmental one, not me.
 
Last edited:

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
Given a timeframe of circa 500-1000 million years, anything is possible. Wiki gives some indicators of how the evolution of the eye might have happened.
I answered this thought with an 18 minute video that you don’t have time to watch.
You could understand that this is mathematically impossible or you can continue ignoring evidence and continue in your ignorant bias.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The problem with Darwinian evolution is that Darwin had absolutely no idea of the complexity of any life form. He did not know genetics, RNA, DNA, etc. ad infinitum.

The human eye includes a "ciliary body." Biochemist professor Michael Behe writes, "In summary, as biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts" (Darwin's Black Box, 73). And again, "New research on the roles of the auxiliary proteins cannot simplify the irreducibly complex system. The intransigence of the problem cannot be alleviated; it will only get worse. Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. The overwhelming complexity of the swimming systems push us to think it may never give an explanation" (Ibid.).

I for one believe that DNA alone disproves biological evolution. A single strand of DNA is incredibly complex, and demands a designer.
 
The problem with Darwinian evolution is that Darwin had absolutely no idea of the complexity of any life form. He did not know genetics, RNA, DNA, etc. ad infinitum......
I for one believe that DNA alone disproves biological evolution. A single strand of DNA is incredibly complex, and demands a designer.
This. :Thumbsup
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is one way DNA disproves evolution. Scientists agree in calling DNA a language. I'm a linguist (Japanese, Greek, translation studies, etc.), so I look at DNA as a language also. Your DNA communicates exactly what you are. Here is just one (non-anonymous) website about that: The Language of DNA

Here is a definition of language proving this point: "The phenomenon of vocal and written communication among human beings" (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 215). According to linguists, then, language takes place between intelligent beings.

In any language, there must be two communicators: the speaker and the receptor. In the case of DNA, the receptor is evident: you! Your body was formed in your mother's womb by following the instructions in your DNA. But here is the problem the evolutionist faces. Who is the speaker? In other words, who is communicating with that language of DNA? Well of course the creationist says it is God! To the evolutionist, I suppose it is "nature" or "evolution" or some such answer. But that makes no sense. In order to communicate there must be thought. "Nature" and "evolution" are not thinking beings. They produce no thought and therefore cannot communicate.

Famous linguist Noam Chomsky held to a theory called universal grammar. This is the idea that humans are born with an innate ability to communicate. Therefore, human beings all over the globe have languages. God Himself has communicated to us with His Word, the Bible. Why then would it be a stretch to say that God communicates to the human race with DNA? And that therefore He as the master communicator is also the master designer?

A linguistics book on communication I own but haven't read yet points out that communication must have intentionality (Stephen Littlejohn & Karen Foss, Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed., 2011, 4). Now, is the evolutionist going to argue that "evolution," which is not some existing being, has intentionality? Did some alien race called "Evolution" decide to produce the human race? I've read this idea in a science fiction book, but in real scholarship? Nope!
 
Last edited:

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
I am reading Sophia Taylor's translation of 1889. First, I cannot perceive what contradiction on pp. 85-86 you are referring to. "Dome" and "solid structures" are not invoked by Delitzsch, to my mind. Secondly, I don't accept Delitzsch is necessarily an advance on Keil, for the following reasons.
I am pleased to learn that you are reading the commentary on Genies by Delitzsch and that you apparently still have a healthy mind. Delitzsch was, as you have observed for yourself, more critically minded than was Keil. When I wrote that Delitzsch was more accurate, I was not at all referring his degree of critical thinking, I was referring to his words that you quoted,

“There is nothing in these poetical similes to warrant the idea that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass [or dome], a σιδήρεον, or χάλκεον or πολύχαλκον, such as Greek poets describe. The רקיע (rendered Veste by Luther, after the στερέωα of the lxx and firmamentum of the Vulgate) is called heaven in Genesis 1:8, i.e., the vault of heaven, which stretches out above the earth. The waters under the firmament are the waters upon the globe itself; those above are not ethereal waters.”

Genesis 1-11 was written in a genre of literature that does not employ similes or metaphors of any other kind. Furthermore, there is very much in Genesis to warrant the idea that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass or dome.

In the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,

The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).

Furthermore, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of the word רָקִיעַ in Gen. 1:6, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956). Moreover, John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ is translated as στερέωμα.

A Greek–English Lexicon, often referred to as Liddell & Scott, gives us the following definition of the στερέωμα

στερέ-ωμα , ατος, τό,

A.solid body, Hp.Flat.8, Anaxag. ap. Placit.2.25.9.

b. ἄϋλα ς. immaterial solids, Dam.Pr.425, cf. 205.

2. foundation or framework, e.g. the skeleton, on which the body is, as it were, built, Arist.PA655a22; στερεώματος ἕνεκα τοῦ περιτρήτου to strengthen it, Hero Bel.95.8: metaph., solid part, strength of an army, LXX 1 Ma.9.14; also, ratification, ἐπιστολῆς ib.Es.9.29; steadfastness, “τῆς πίστεωςEp.Col.2.5.

3. = στεῖρα (of a ship), Thphr. HP5.7.3.

4. firmament, i.e. the sky, the heaven above, LXX Ge. 1.6, Ez.1.22, al.; “τὸν τῶν οὐρανίων ς. δεσπότηνTab.Defix.Aud.242.8 (Carthage, iii A.D.).


In the Latin Vulgate, the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ is translated as στερέωμα.

Martin Luther’s statement on the meaning of the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ in Gen. 1:6,

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

[ Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43 ]
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
Do you accept that Jesus was and is God in Human flesh, and as the Creator, so he would have had firsthand knowledge of what actually happened, as he was there int he beginning
God did not die on the cross or anywhere else! God’s only begotten son, a genuine human being and a perfect sacrifice, died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, was buried, was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

THE NICENE CREED​

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
God did not die on the cross or anywhere else! God’s only begotten son, a genuine human being and a perfect sacrifice, died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, was buried, was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

THE NICENE CREED​

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I assume you put this creed here because it is what you think you believe.
If you were to read it closely and understand what it says, it is saying that Jesus is God. That when He came from God, He was and is still God yet robed in a real (genuine) human body and not a ghost or spiritual appearance.


Or is this just prose? Have you determined the style and genre of writing for this also? Are you sure they are more believable than Genesis 1-11?

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Let me guess. This is also prose?

Colossians 1:12-19
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;


More prose?
Or do you not understand the significance of the Words?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
God did not die on the cross or anywhere else! God’s only begotten son, a genuine human being and a perfect sacrifice, died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, was buried, was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

THE NICENE CREED​

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
So you do indeed deny the Deity of the Lord Jesus?
 
So you do indeed deny the Deity of the Lord Jesus?
This was not justified by Craig's statement.
I object to the verbiage "God died on the cross" in much the same way I object to verbiage like "Mary was the mother of God".
God is a trinity.
The Holy Spirit did not die, the Father did not die, the trinity did not die on the cross, and Mary wasn't the mother of it either.

If he did deny the deity of Christ (unlikely if he accepts the Nicene Creed) then his merely objecting to your verbiage that "God died on the cross", is no reason to assume it.
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
This was not justified by Craig's statement.
I object to the verbiage "God died on the cross" in much the same way I object to verbiage like "Mary was the mother of God".
God is a trinity.
The Holy Spirit did not die, the Father did not die, the trinity did not die on the cross, and Mary wasn't the mother of it either.

If he did deny the deity of Christ (unlikely if he accepts the Nicene Creed) then his merely objecting to your verbiage that "God died on the cross", is no reason to assume it.
@Craigbythesea is the one who introduced the verbiage.
Because of this, I also question the statement that he made.
The fact that he is back peddling by agreeing with you without addressing what he said is not helpful in the conversation. If he doesn’t mean what he was understood to have said, let him answer it.
1756490731727.jpeg
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
@Craigbythesea is the one who introduced the verbiage.
Because of this, I also question the statement that he made.
The fact that he is back peddling by agreeing with you without addressing what he said is not helpful in the conversation. If he doesn’t mean what he was understood to have said, let him answer it.
View attachment 12025
His wording seemed to imply, at least to me, that Jesus was either ignorant of Genesis, was just towing what he learned and was educated in, or even worse, that if he stated God did not die upon that cross, was by those very words chosen, Jesus was not God in human flesh?
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
His wording seemed to imply, at least to me, that Jesus was either ignorant of Genesis, was just towing what he learned and was educated in, or even worse, that if he stated God did not die upon that cross, was by those very words chosen, Jesus was not God in human flesh?
That is the way I understood it also. By his logic Colossians is merely a repeat of what he calls merely a genre of literature not to be taken literally.
I think people should be consistent. If you want to say that you don’t believe the Bible, you are at least consistent.
If you want to believe the Bible but don’t want to believe what is in it, you are fooling yourself. If you want to believe that God is in control but doesn’t have the ability to tell how He made everything, you are fooling yourself.
If you’re unstable and choose what you want to believe on the whim of general consensus in the name of science, you should be aware of it.
 

cjab

Member
I am pleased to learn that you are reading the commentary on Genies by Delitzsch and that you apparently still have a healthy mind. Delitzsch was, as you have observed for yourself, more critically minded than was Keil. When I wrote that Delitzsch was more accurate, I was not at all referring his degree of critical thinking, I was referring to his words that you quoted,

“There is nothing in these poetical similes to warrant the idea that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass [or dome], a σιδήρεον, or χάλκεον or πολύχαλκον, such as Greek poets describe. The רקיע (rendered Veste by Luther, after the στερέωα of the lxx and firmamentum of the Vulgate) is called heaven in Genesis 1:8, i.e., the vault of heaven, which stretches out above the earth. The waters under the firmament are the waters upon the globe itself; those above are not ethereal waters.”

Genesis 1-11 was written in a genre of literature that does not employ similes or metaphors of any other kind. Furthermore, there is very much in Genesis to warrant the idea that the heavens were regarded as a solid mass or dome.

In the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,

The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).

Furthermore, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of the word רָקִיעַ in Gen. 1:6, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956). Moreover, John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ is translated as στερέωμα.

A Greek–English Lexicon, often referred to as Liddell & Scott, gives us the following definition of the στερέωμα

στερέ-ωμα , ατος, τό,

A.solid body, Hp.Flat.8, Anaxag. ap. Placit.2.25.9.

b. ἄϋλα ς. immaterial solids, Dam.Pr.425, cf. 205.

2. foundation or framework, e.g. the skeleton, on which the body is, as it were, built, Arist.PA655a22; στερεώματος ἕνεκα τοῦ περιτρήτου to strengthen it, Hero Bel.95.8: metaph., solid part, strength of an army, LXX 1 Ma.9.14; also, ratification, ἐπιστολῆς ib.Es.9.29; steadfastness, “τῆς πίστεωςEp.Col.2.5.

3. = στεῖρα (of a ship), Thphr. HP5.7.3.

4. firmament, i.e. the sky, the heaven above, LXX Ge. 1.6, Ez.1.22, al.; “τὸν τῶν οὐρανίων ς. δεσπότηνTab.Defix.Aud.242.8 (Carthage, iii A.D.).


In the Latin Vulgate, the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ is translated as στερέωμα.

Martin Luther’s statement on the meaning of the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ in Gen. 1:6,

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

[ Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43 ]
First, the apostles acknowledge that Hebrew is authoritative over the LXX in respect of the OT. This is easily seen from Paul's quotation of Heb 2:4 in Rom 1:17, where he doesn't take the LXX literally (which adds a gloss to the Hebrew), but reverts back to the original Hebrew meaning.

This implies that we ought to discard the LXX as non-aithoritative, as far too late.

Reverting back to the Hebrew, the Hebrew word for firmament is רָקִיעַ which comes from the verb רָקַע which means to beat out, to stamp, to stretch.

Although used of beating out metal, the verb isn't restricted to metal, but can be used of anything beaten or stamped out. Thus Keil is right when he suggests there is no necessary implication of a solid structure in the Hebrew. The meaning is only what is beaten out, i.e. an expanse. The allegation is that the critical view is hopelessly conditioned by the secular ideas of the ancients, rather than being content with the simple unnuanced Hebrew concept of an "expanse". Again, I don't believe there is a case for imputing anything scientific into this word.
 

cjab

Member
This is a typical evolutionist answer. Throw a few 100 million years at the problem and it will go away. Sorry, that is an inadequate answer, and that is why so many Christians are creationists nowadays. All evolution can answer with is "millions of years." But that is not science. Science demands observation, and no one has seen anything evolving, nor can they.

But the problems still remains. You can't whitewash it away. Again, none of the individual parts of the eye can stand alone. Why would a cornea develop, for example? It is useless by itself. In the Wiki article (anonymous again, so college students are not allowed to use that as a source), the various parts of the eye just show up, somehow. There is no explanation of how each part, useless individually, developed.

But the Wiki article gives some great quotes, such as this one: "In 1802, philosopher William Paley called it a miracle of 'design.'" Exactly. A design by an infinitely intelligent Person, our God.

That's the best you have? First of all, changes intra-species and inter-species are completely different subjects. Again, the article proves absolutely nothing about inter-species evolution. The data is simply not there.

And you say "expect to see interspecies mutation." Why and how? This is the vagueness with which evolution seeks to prove its "science." But when evolution departs from cold, hard, facts, it ceases to be science.
I am not here to debate the science of evolution, other than very generally. But consider this: the science of evolution and movement of the Earth's tectonic plates over millions of years makes more sense than the theology of God creating fossils of sea creatures on mountains, just to cater to YEC.

With the eye, it seems to me that the mistake you are making is to posit "piecemeal evolution" as impossible. That line of attack is wrong, because no-one holds to it. Of course, the eye, as many other parts of the body, wouldn't have evolved piecemeal, but in a systematic way, where the eye system as a whole obtained ever greater degrees of sophistication.

I didn't claim "misinformation." I claimed anonymity, and in the academic world where I work, that is unacceptable. At any rate, thanks for setting me straight. In reading the article on its webpage, I saw no sign that Kelly wrote it.

Now, in my entire life I have not been accused of being underhanded, and certainly not in my many years here on the BB. Pray tell, what "underhanded" tactic did I use, and how did I try to deceive you? I simply noted that the article was not sourced (and it was not on the webpage). In the academic world we must have sources. I give failing grades when I get no sources from the student.
Not every article on the WWW appears in a form that would be found in academic journals. It doesn't infer the article is untrue. If an article isn't true, it's up to you to adduce the evidence for its untruthfulness. I found nothing in it that makes me suspicious of its verity. Attacking its lack of academic credentials is underhand if the article wasn't intended as an academic publication, but only as a synopsis of other academic articles already published.

A "cult"? Are you kidding me? That's ridiculous. YEC does not fit any possible definition of a cult.
YEC is a cult, first because it is scientifically incomprehensible on any account, and secondly it invokes the bible as its authority. My reading of the bible doesn't make it any source of science. To read it so, is to misuse it. The bible makes it clear than many matters are for man to discover for himself. All misuse of the bible is impermissible. Misuse has been a constant source of religious persecution down the ages.

And I have made no comments inviting such a response. It looks to me like you are the judgmental one, not me.
I have already made my judgement concerning YEC. Seems we are going to be in eternal disagreement on it. Actually I have never considered it even worthy of debate. Radio carbon dating goes back 50,000 years, as does so much earth-science regress well before the era of Adam. To say that the world was created in the same week that Adam was created isn't made out by any apostle of Christ, and so why elevate that theory to the status of an article of faith, as YEC do, even on this very board?
 
Last edited:
Top