A Theory of Biblical Creation

trueorigins.com ^ | 2000 | Timothy Wallace

[nicmarlo]

thanks for posting this article. It appears to be an informative and logical disection of people whose belief is evolution.

[RobRoy]

The gospels don't match each other either...

Of course, this is what brought one trial attorney to Jesus. He said that whenever you have several witnesses who's testimony are pretty much identical, it means there is collusion. Real, and sincere witnesses will give slightly different testimony but will remain consistent with the key facts.

That is why one of the gospels says that the two men on crosses beside Jesus reviled him, yet another says that one "came to his defense." Yet both may be right, for one can revile one minute and have a change of heart the next.

Of course those who want to condemn the Bible call this an obvious discrepency...

The attorney would have thought that the gospels were "made up" if they matched too closely.

[free_european]

Thats a fair point.

There does seem to be a consistent view in the Bible that the earth is flat, however. Given that the dominant view of men was that the world was flat until quite recently, this doesnt seem too surprising. H

owever, it might be a good reason for not viewing the Bible as word-for-word fact.

[tfecw]

wait...so it's right if the the stories don't match, and wrong if they do?

That lawyer is a dummy and probably isn't worth his salt in the court room. "Obviously your honor, the prosecution's evidence matches too well together and proves without a doubt that my client did. Obviously it's a conspiracy."

[Quark2005]

"I agree with them on the point that ID/Creation is not science, it is religion."

I concur.

The Creation account of the Bible is inspired poetry meant to convey the greater meaning of God's infinite power of creation to a simple people in a simple time. In this light, it still has powerful value as an inspired message.
To attempt to literally translate it as modern science is completely insane and a hindrance to scientific progress.

The charts shown in the article mostly consist of the same tired and overwhelmingly refuted arguments posited by the deceptive and/or scientifically illiterate over decades past. (i.e. the inability to add information to genetic code, when in fact genes have been observed to replicate, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument, which only can be applied to closed or relatively simple systems where the entropy can be quantified).

[RobRoy]

Are you a trial attorney?

[mr2trucker]

Dan 4:6 Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise [men] of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream.

Dan 4:7 Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof.

Dan 4:8 But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name [was] Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom [is] the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, [saying],

Dan 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods [is] in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.

As you should have noticed the verse referencing the circle stated AS a curtain and AS a tent. The word AS is used as a comparison, or is that to hard to understand.

The CONTRADICTION you stated was found in a dream. Are you saying that if a character in the Bible has a dream that dream must coincide with every other passage in the Bible, or should we see that since it is a dream it is obviously not literal. It seem that the more people try to find fault with the Bible the more they just prove they have not read it. You will NOT find a contradiction unless you take passages out of context.

[tfecw]

no and i don't understand how that would make me less qualified to detect that your argument laughable.

[swmobuffalo]

WOW!

[RobRoy]

I try to keep from readin too much into some of the things the Bible says. For example, when the Bible talks about the "four corners" of the earth, some pundits would argue that that is proof that the word of God says the world is flat AND square.

In fact, when we say today that the sun "sets," we don't literally mean it moves around the earth. But everyone who lives here knows exactly what we mean.

Same is true with the Bible. It is rife with the usage of "figures of speach," That is all the circle of the earth, four corners of the earth, "rabbit chewing cud" and "four legged insects" stuff is all about. The point that was meant to be communicated was, in fact communicated.

When I say the meal will begin at sunset, I am not making a statement about the earth, the sun and their relationship to the cosmos and physics.

I am merely letting all "normal" people who live around me when we will eat. 8^>

[RobRoy]

>>no and i don't understand how that would make me less qualified to detect that your argument laughable. <<

That is because you do not know what you do not know.

Ask an EXPERIENCED trial attorney about the concept some time. I have a feeling you are in for a surprise. ;^>

[PresbyRev]

Good article on the GA evolution controversy:

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/11-23-04.asp

[elbucko]

The Creation account of the Bible is inspired poetry meant to convey the greater meaning of God's infinite power of creation to a simple people in a simple time. In this light, it still has powerful value as an inspired message. To attempt to literally translate it as modern science is completely insane and a hindrance to scientific progress.

I agree.
I find it a curious paradox that so many of the men of science, that are named or quoted, first began as priests, monks or theologians. Many compulsively religious people continue to look for signs, as in the Shroud of Turin, and ignore the whispers of God that men like Gregor Mendel listened to.

It's sad, really. Science is God beckoning us to understand His miracles. If only we would listen, instead of preach.

[Physicist]

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection

Wow! How did all those animals fit on Noah's Ark?

[Jeff Gordon]

And all this proves just what, exactly?

It shows that one can fill a 55 gallon drum with a tablespoon of shit.

[tfecw]

I think i will when i get home.

your arguments are full of double think. If it seems to factual then it's wrong. If it seems inconsistent then it's correct.

Then you start to pick in choose which sections of the bible or literal and which are not. Who decides those sections? My Math books aren't half fiction half non fiction. It's a factual document and read as one. Maybe a better analogy would be to use a history book. For the most part you can reason that some things were factual but others weren't.

We don't read Greek mythology and hail it as factual, why would the bible be different? Heck Greek mythology is older then the bible. I'm sure if i were talking with someone back in Greek times he would claim it factual as well. So it goes.

[elbucko]

......;^)

[free_european]

"I try to keep from readin too much into some of the things the Bible says."

I agree; and that was my original point to a gentleman who earlier made a tortured point about how Nephilim might be neanderthals.

[CyberAnt]

Here's a good story:

A black Baptist preacher had a very good friend who was a noted biologist. As they met for lunch one day, the biologist was excited because he believed he had discovered (after 25 years of research) that the world was made up of 5 major elements -

Time
Force
Energy
Space
Matter

The Baptist preacher began laughing and replied to his friend - You could have saved yourself 25 years of research by simply reading the first line of the Bible.

Time - In the beginning
Force - GOD
Energy - created
Space - the heavens
Matter - and the earth.

I actually saw the black preacher on TV telling this story - 20 years ago - It's stunning in it's simplicity.

[RobRoy]

It is not a matter of literal. Different parts of the Bible are written for different reasons. These four books are unique in that they are four eyewitness accounts of Jesus life. The Gospel of Thomas was not considered authentic.

What is so exciting about them is their obvious inconsistencies in ways that follow the personalities of the real human beings. It smacks of authenticity, while "made up" gospels would almost certainly not survive the test of time.

It is like asking a man and his wife about the same person. The woman said she was wearing a red polka dot pants-suit with white spiked heals and white hat and climbed into her convertible and left.

The guy says she was wearing a red dress and climbed into a beautiful matching red Porsche Boxter.

Now which was it, a pants-suit or a dress? Was it polka dot or not? Was one of them lying? How germane is it?

Would you say, in a court of law, that these two testimonies match? If they both mentioned the exact same details, (red Boxter, white spiked heels, convertible top, "polka dot pants suit" and white hat) would you not suspect collusion because of the unnatural precision.

Yet, if one were to make up the gospels, that is exactly the way they would read: "See, they match perfectly so they must be authentic!"

That isn't how eyewitness testimony works. It is as C. S. Lewis noted: Christianity has just enough odd twists to preclude it from being "invented" by humans.

His book "Mere Christianity" covers this nicely.