Re: Comprehending Steven J.

On Jan 16, 10:30 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip

Who is "he" in your point above?

Ancient Hebrew is an ambiguous language that originally contained no
vowels. Words, like very many English words, could have a plethora of
legitimate meanings. We know that the word "day" in Genesis one has
two perfectly legitimate meanings: it can mean twenty four hour period
or thousand year period.

Who is the "we" in your claim above?   And if you can ascribe that much
difference in ancient Hebrew, why are you assuming there can only be one
correct interpretation?


Persons who accept the scholarship of Hebrew scholars (= "we").

I never advocated one correct interpretation of ANY scripture.

I have simply pointed out an axiomatic truth: some "interpretations"
are deliberate nonsense and not allowed. According to your schemes the
creation of man terminology and phraseology could mean natural
evolution, which is deliberate corruption, because *natural evolution*
means the supernatural was not involved; and 'creation' or 'created'
always means the supernatural was directly involved. No one could
possibly say being formed from the clay-like ground in God's likeness
is suggesting evolution, but the same is plainly communicating
miraculous beginning. The claim is either spectacularly true or
spectacularly false.







They would assume, for any text that might contain errors, that an
prima facie absurd passage was simply an error.  Because they held (as
you do) that the Bible does not contain errors, they held that it must
be interpreted in ways that are not obvious without detailed
reflection and an extensively figurative reading of the text.  And
this tradition continued, in both Christian and Jewish hands, for
centuries afterwards.

First off: the Bible contains thousands of translation, grammatical,
punctuation and spelling errors due to mistakes made by copyists and
translators. Human beings make errors. But when scholarship corrects
these errors (that is why they take the time to learn dead languages)
and the original text is restored the best it can be: THIS TEXT claims
to be the *factually* inerrant word of God. That is the ancient claim
of the Church made in behalf of the pre-Reformation Canon.

You seem to be assuming here that "scholarship" doesn't make errors.
Perhaps your "scholar" made an error in the claim that the "text claims"
to be the "factually inerrant word of God".


Scholars make errors.




Why is this so hard to understand?

Because there is no "ancient claim" that the Bible is inerrant.  That
claim is very recent.


Factually inerrant, yes, how could words from God be otherwise?







Comment describes scripture with the qualifying phrase "literal sense"
- the same is unexplained as to what is meant. Phrase gives the
appearance that scripture does not mean what it says or say what it
means; the same presupposes scripture as false and must be treated
differently. Comment also presupposes that conflict exists between
"literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. Again, I am
only pointing out presuppositions, that is, things that are assumed to
be factual by supposition and not by evidence. But Steven is saying
these suppositions are based on evidence. Of course Christians
disagree.
Ray, the "literal sense" is the sense in which Biblical references to
a "canopy" (_raqiyah_) with "windows" in it refer to a Babylonian-
style cosmology in which the sky is a literal dome with hatches or
holes in it which can be opened to let rain through or closed to keep
rain from falling.  

And the word in the Hebrew is the same word in which we get our
English word "cataract".

According to etymologists, the English word "Cataract"(meaning
waterfall) comes ultimately from the Greek "katarakte-s", not the Hebrew.
See:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cataract


Yes, I have made an error and I accept your correction. I should have
alluded to the Greek of the LXX and not Hebrew. And it does not mean
'waterfall' but 'covering' like a cataract that develops on the human
eye.


  >There was a canopy covering the atmosphere of

the Earth before the Flood.

Ray, remember, you tried this claim before.  There is no evidence of a
vapor canopy, and such a canopy would have made life as we know it on
Earth untenable.


There was a covering. Other planets in our solar system show evidence
of once having canopies also.


This canopy contained water. When it burst
it flooded the Earth. Before the Flood it never had rained and the
canopy apparently had holes in it that allowed a constant mist to go
forth and water the ground. These texts are scientifically accurate.

Actually, those claims are scientifically nonsense.   There is no
evidence of a vapor canopy, and no way such a canopy could have existed.

There is no way such a canopy could have "holes" in it, and there is no
way it could have permitted a "mist".


I have made an error, I did not mean to say the canopy had holes that
emitted a mist; rather the mist came from the ground:

Genesis 2:5,6

"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every
herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it
to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground."


    There is also no evidence of a global flood.   This has been covered
before, remember how you were shown that Mr. Scott's claim about the
vapor canopy was wrong, and how there was no JPL scientists who ever
proposed, or supported this claim?   For information on why the vapor
canopy idea is nonsense, see:
 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A2http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/fcanopy.html


Dr. Scott did not make the claim; rather, he presented the evidence
made by others, including Isaac Vail. There is ample evidence for a
canopy.




The "literal sense" is the sense in which "God
made Adam from the dust of the Earth" is held to describe a man being
shaped out of mud and being transformed into living tissue.  

You mean clay. Scriptural exegesis says mankind is clay in the hands
of the Potter (Jeremiah 18).

I believe that Steven is referring to Genesis 2:7



This is the Biblical explanation for the origin of mankind.

The Jeremiah passage is obviously a metaphor.


Yes, of the way God works in the lives of those who have accepted His
authority. The metaphor says God is in control like a Potter is in
control of the clay on his wheel.

It too is
scientifically accurate unless you are a Materialist with no capacity
to discern Designer or Creator.

Or just someone who is scientifically literate.   A "materialist" has
just as much capacity to discern a "Designer or Creator" as anyone,
however the evidence simply doesn't support the idea of a supernatural
creation event.


You obviously have no idea or concept of what Materialism means.


snip

If tens of millions of people hold that a book they

haven't read is in perfect agreement with a field of research they've
never studied, how is that evidence that this Book actually agrees
with science?

I already told you that the Bible is in gross conflict with Darwinian
"science" - and not science.

There is no such distinction.  All science operates on the same
principles that Darwin, and other scientists used.   Science, does not
support your beliefs.


The science you are referring to is Scientism (= evolutionary
"science"; the worship of anti-reality ideas that deny invisible
Designer) which is evil. Regular or normal science is good. Science
has always shown and proven that Creationism-Design is a scientific
fact. Darwinism is a schism that will eventually be seen as the great
Atheist conspiracy that succeeded for a century or two. Persons like
Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are the epitome of confused minds
unable to recognize the true nature of reality based on hatred of God
and the desire to take His place like so many other persons of
history, like Antiochus Epiphanes, for example.




Persons who accept neo-Darwinism propose ridiculous interpretations
and explanations of scientific evidence.

How are these interpretations "ridiculous"?  Just because they don't
match your irrational beliefs?

Other times they produce
evidence and data that corresponds perfectly to the Bible,

Such as?

but because
they are Materialists they are unaware of this agreement.

All scientists operate on the principle of methodological naturalism.
There is no other kind of science.


Darwinian "science" uses Naturalism-Materialism. Real science starts
with the premise that God is seen through reality and is the Creator-
Designer. Your inability to see that Atheist ideology has hijacked
science is self-apparent.

As for your other questions above you will have to wait for my paper.


Other times
neo-Darwinists deliberately suppress evidence that confirms the Bible
in spectacular fashion.

Such as?   Where has any scientist "suppressed" evidence that "confirms"
the Bible's claims?


It will be in my paper. The evidence is overwhelming.




Answer: persons who advocate Atheist-evolutionism.
I cannot imagine that Kenneth Miller, for example, is an advocate of
"atheist-evolutionism," nor does it seem at all likely that Francis
Collins is such.  

Miller is an Atheist based on the fact that he advocates a theory that
presupposes Atheist ideology for its starting presuppositions.

Ray, that is classical circular reasoning.   You are claiming that
evolution is "atheist ideology" and then claiming that anyone who
supports the science of evolution is an atheist, even when it's obvious
he is no, as is the case with Dr. Miller.


Yes, that is what I am saying. In the case of Miller he is, like I
said, deceived (like yourself). The only exception is true ignorance.

For example, Dinesh D'Souza is truly ignorant.


Evolution excludes God as an explanation (= corresponds to Atheism).

Ray, every science excludes appeal to the supernatural, as it's
unscientific.  It does not exclude, however the possibility that God
exists, and uses natural processes as his means of creation.   What
"corresponds to atheism" is a claim that God doesn't exist, something
that evolution, and every other science, does not make.


Completely false.

Science has always accepted God as Creator, only Darwinian Atheist-
based "science" denies.


Based on these facts, Miller is an Atheist.

No, Ray, you don't get to tell other people what they believe, or don't
believe.  Dr. Miller is a Christian, and a devout one at that.


How do you know that Miller is a Christian? Do you know Miller?

Is there any evidence corroborating his claim? Or is the claim
evidence in this case?


If Miller claims to be a
Christian the evidence just explained refutes his claim.

Your irrational and illogical claims are not evidence, Ray.


My claims are rational and logical, it is self-evident.

No real
Christian would ever even consider leaving God out of the equation.

Ray, you don't get to judge who is a "real Christian".  And Dr. Miller
has stated quite clearly, he does not "leave God out of the equation".
Dr. Miller, like many others, believes that God exists, and that he
creates by means of natural processes.


Hypothetical biological First Cause is not part of ToE and the same
does not qualify as including God in the equation. Evolution says
Intelligence is not manifest in biological reality. Miller is confused
or a liar. There can be no other conclusion.

Christians in history (recent and ancient) die for God and the Bible,
they don't cooperate with the Atheist-ACLU agenda.

Which is false.  The ACLU is not atheist, and many Christians do
cooperate with the ACLU's goal of protecting religious freedom for
everyone.


Everyone knows that AtheistCLU is the most hateful anti-Christian
organization in America.


Miller is widely
loved by the secular world.

Because he's an honest and respected scientist.

The Bible, without exception, shows
persons who are in God's will to be rejected and hated by the secular
world.

That, of course is simply false.  There are many examples of people who
do God's will and are not hated for it.


The Bible proves that Miller is a liar or completely deceived. If the
secular world loves you then this is the irrefutable proof that said
person is not walking with God. The Bible shows no exceptions.


Miller is deceived.

No, Dr. Miller is an honest and devoted scientist.  It's obvious that
Ray is the one decieved.


Miller is a vicious and admitted liar, or he is completely deceived.


He cares more about the praise of men than
of God. He is, in practice, an Atheist, even if he attends Mass.

Ray, since Dr. Miller believes in God, he's not an atheist.  There is no
evidence that Dr. Miller cares more about the "praise of men" than for
God.  By being honest, and standing up for God's truth, Miller is
serving God much better than charlatans such as Hovind, Ham, Gish, and
other Creationist liars.


There is no objective evidence that Miller is a Christian, but much
evidence that he is an Atheist in sheeps clothing.

Your slander of Creationists is unfortunate but expected.

Dr. Jonathan Wells (two Ph.D.s). He was once a evolutionist, he has
said concerning evolution: "I didn't have the faith to believe in it
anymore." Scholars have always known that evolution is false. They
have had to break the news gently, but since 1996 they have decided to
abandon this Christian approach.




But even putting aside the number of people you call
"atheist-evolutionists" despite their own insistence that they believe
in God, you are arguing that people's presuppositions can make them
embrace patently false propositions, even on subjects on which they
are well-aquainted with the evidence.  Yet you insist that half the
U.S. population, speaking on subjects (biology, paleontology,
cosmology, etc.) on which they know next to nothing, are immune to
having their conclusions warped by their presuppositions, simply
because you agree with those presuppositions.

False. You misrepresent me and Creationists in general.

In what way?   Creationists, in general are not well versed in science,
...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You misunderstand.

For an evolutionist to think that creationists are not well versed in
science is a compliment, the approval of your kind would make it so.

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Comprehending Steven J.
    ... about three days of creation before God got around to creating the sun ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... My money is on the latter, but there's so little evidence there's room for lots of TEism in the gap. ... Factually inerrant, yes, how could words from God be otherwise? ... Ray, remember, you tried this claim before. ... "science" - and not science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionism: a synonym for atheist-friendly presuppositions - why cant Dana understand?
    ... that they had no idea of modern science is irrelevant. ... somehow in touch with god. ... offered no evidence for it. ... You just don't grasp the concept of faith, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Miller time
    ... Advancement of Science annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will ... I'm not sure why you add this proviso: Ken Miller is generally rather ... up front about his religious beliefs, and talks about God quite frequently. ... would not be so put off by "unguided" evolution that they turn from ...
    (talk.origins)