Holding their feet to the fire ...

[klaus54]

No! By your MISREPRESENTATION of my approach to Scripture Jesus would be "lying". But I've already written about such dishonest misrepresentations. Heck, by misrepresenting me (as you often do) you can make it appear that I've said just about anything you wish.

Back under the rock you go!

Jorge

Jim's correct.

According to any First Century A.D. interpretation of "soon", Jesus WOULD be lying.

So, Jorge -- are you calling Jesus a liar?

Or can you contort "soon" to mean the same thing to the Apostles as it does to us 21st Century kool kats?

Now look in a mirror and apply the same logic to the notion of the Genesis stories and Deep Time.

K54

[Omniskeptical]

Hitler also rejected the idea that mankind evolved from lower animals.

No, just apes.

[Jesse]

Awwwww ... and you had been doing so well.

Why would you even seriously consider, let alone reply, to anything that Beagle "Blabbermouth" Boy says?

Oh well, it's your right to do so, I guess.

Jorge

Jorge. You should not consider that a knock against you. I have no problems with anyone here. Like I said, it has been pleasant talking with you. Please don't hold someone else's opinion of you as a statement of agreement on my end. I have responded to many things HMS_Beagle has said. We all are not going to agree on everything.

[Jorge]

You may very well be right. But I think so far it's been pleasant.

Awwwww ... and you had been doing so well.

Why would you even seriously consider, let alone reply, to anything that Beagle "Blabbermouth" Boy says?

Oh well, it's your right to do so, I guess.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge,

Jesus said he was coming back soon. By your approach to scripture, He was lying.

Jim

No! By your MISREPRESENTATION of my approach to Scripture Jesus would be "lying". But I've already written about such dishonest misrepresentations. Heck, by misrepresenting me (as you often do) you can make it appear that I've said just about anything you wish.

Back under the rock you go!

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Jorge,

Jesus said he was coming back soon. By your approach to scripture, He was lying.


Jim

[klaus54]

I am hoping that is not how he comes to his conclusions. I am still trying to figure out exactly what is being said though.

Good luck with that, Jesse.

And there's no sarcasm intended....

K54

[klaus54]

And this being the case, the only way to get the bible to fit those samples is to distort either the samples or the bible. Jorge is quite right about this.

What sometimes puzzles me is the determination that many people have, to both accept what we have learned about our universe through our own diligent efforts, AND accept the infallible truth of their bible. Why not simply observe that the bible is a reflection of the beliefs and superstitions of intelligent and creative but less informed people thousands of years ago?

Every issue of Science News has a column picking something scientists thought 50 years ago, and what they think today. The difference lies in the continued accumulation of evidence AND the scientific willingness to honor the evidence. Would that religion could do the same.

"infalliable" is a fundy jargon term -- used by all stripes of fundies.

Bible interpretation in a cultural/historical ANE context together with literary criticism ameliorates many of these "problems".

Since fundy atheists and fundy Christians use the same Bible interpretation, it's only natural that the Jorges/JordanRivers/"Mr. Blacks" of Christendom so vehemently defend their long-since scientifically falsifiable interpretation, else they have no choice but to jump ship to full-blown faith-mocking atheist.

Quite simple actually.

And sad in both cases.

K54

[Jesse]

Sadly we've all seen Jorge in action for years. His position has always been "Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right". That's never gonna change, evidence be damned.

You may very well be right. But I think so far it's been pleasant.

[Jesse]

Doesn't look like it. I suggest a second reading of my previous posts. Invariably it is the BIBLE that gets distorted and so I don't see where you get that "... or both are distorted". I also don't know what you mean by "pigeonholed". I had defined "distort" very clearly.

I was asking if you thought Evolution and the Bible are both distorted in the eyes of a Theistic Evolutionist. And so that would be the only way they could make it compatible. But It looks like you just meant the Bible only.

The Bible says nothing about Evolution, as you say, but the inference you speak of must be consistent with an UNDISTORTED reading of the Bible. If you or I have unrestrained liberty to interpret (and by that distort) what is written then we can pretty much make it say whatever we want it to say. This is what Theistic Evolutionists do.

But I don't see how the inference can be seen as a distortion. It's merely a hypothesis with regard to the topic of the text. For the text to be distorted, I would need to apply it falsely or misleadingly. Which I don't think I am?

Refer back to what I wrote. I try to be as precise as possible when writing about these things (unless I state otherwise) but of course that doesn't mean that I could not do better. I put the word "are" between quotes in my previous post. What I meant by that is that the same chemical elements that we ingest are what make up our material body. That much is indisputable. As to the percentage of these elements that is present, you seem fixated on something that is simply not true. Not all soil contains the same proportion of the elements. The soil in my back yard, for instance has much more silica ('sand') than rich bottom soil of Tennessee farmland.

I don't think I am fixated on anything really. I am just responding to what you are writing. Yes, the chemical elements that we ingest are also in our bodies. But what we eat does not change our chemical elements on a molecular level. I thought that is what you were saying. Sorry if I was wrong about that. I didn't say that all soil contains the same proportions. Soil, the main elements of it, are also in all mammals. It is of course the reason why humans have many genetic elements you see in vegetation. You would expect to see those things if we all came from the earth. That really was my only point.

No problem - I enjoy a worthwhile chat. It's when it ceases being that where I have a problem.

I think our chat has been worthwhile. But, you let me know when you no longer think so.

[Jorge]

Sadly we've all seen Jorge in action for years. His position has always been "Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right". That's never gonna change, evidence be damned.

Hey, it's not Saturday so what the heck is Beagle Boy doing out of his cage?

Jorge

[Jorge]

So then the only way that Theistic Evolutionists and the Bible can be compatible is if either or both are distorted (pigeonholed?) with one another? I hope I am getting your argument correct.

Doesn't look like it. I suggest a second reading of my previous posts. Invariably it is the BIBLE that gets distorted and so I don't see where you get that "... or both are distorted". I also don't know what you mean by "pigeonholed". I had defined "distort" very clearly.

If I am correct in that assumption, then that is what I am having a hard time with it squaring with me. The Bible says nothing about Evolution as far as I can see. But, we can infer a bit from it correct? As an example, in Genesis 1:11-12 God told the earth to create vegetation. But also in Genesis 1:24, God told the earth to produce animals. From my reading of those passages, it looks to me like Evolution in progress. In my personal outlook I don't see a need for distortion or pigeonholing. Would you be kind enough to tell me where I might be wrong and what you think those passages are saying?

The Bible says nothing about Evolution, as you say, but the inference you speak of must be consistent with an UNDISTORTED reading of the Bible. If you or I have unrestrained liberty to interpret (and by that distort) what is written then we can pretty much make it say whatever we want it to say. This is what Theistic Evolutionists do.

As I said, I have a bit of a lack when it comes to fully understanding the debate between Evolution and Creation. I do however, have a fairly firm grasp of genetics. And your explanation (you are what you eat) for humans having the same compositional makeup as soil, I am sorry to say is incorrect. The things you eat do not stick to your genetic makeup. Your genetics are there from birth. Example, no matter how much milk or dairy you consume, the calcium from it will not attach itself to your genetic profile and give it a percentage of more calcium.

Refer back to what I wrote. I try to be as precise as possible when writing about these things (unless I state otherwise) but of course that doesn't mean that I could not do better. I put the word "are" between quotes in my previous post. What I meant by that is that the same chemical elements that we ingest are what make up our material body. That much is indisputable. As to the percentage of these elements that is present, you seem fixated on something that is simply not true. Not all soil contains the same proportion of the elements. The soil in my back yard, for instance has much more silica ('sand') than rich bottom soil of Tennessee farmland.

I do thank you for your patience with me. I am thinking over what you are saying. Just having a hard time with a few things is all.

No problem - I enjoy a worthwhile chat. It's when it ceases being that where I have a problem.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

I am hoping that is not how he comes to his conclusions. I am still trying to figure out exactly what is being said though.

Sadly we've all seen Jorge in action for years. His position has always been "Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right". That's never gonna change, evidence be damned.

[Jesse]

Jesse,

This is the translation of the Jorge quote from YEC Fideism to plain English:

"the Bible is from God and that God said what Jorge thinks it means and means what Jorge thinks it means."

K54

P.S. The Bible says what Jorge thinks it says, Jorge believes it, end of story.

I am hoping that is not how he comes to his conclusions. I am still trying to figure out exactly what is being said though.

[Jesse]

The one-word answer to your question is YES. Only (ONLY!) by 'distorting' what the Bible says can a person reconcile God's Word with Theistic Evolution.

IMPORTANT NOTE: "distorting" includes multiple actions such as: deleting words, adding words, adding extra-biblical philosophies, ideas or concepts that are discordant with the entire Scripture, employing improper exegesis/hermeneutics, inventing ad hoc interpretations, taking the words as poetic language, allegory, myth, figurative language and/or regarding the words as the writings of primitive men. All of these things are what I mean when I say "distorting" the Bible.




That our human bodies contain the chemical elements found in the soil is a trivial point in this issue. There's a very simple explanation: where do we get our physical nourishment from? We "are" what we eat - our physical bodies are made from the materials that we ingest.

You ask, "Isn't that Evolution?" The way that Evolution is meant to be understood - whether by Materialists (Atheists, Humanists) or by Theistic Evolutionists - the answer is a resounding NO. If a person wishes to accept this Evolution then that person must (they have no choice in the matter) distort the Bible in the ways that I listed above.

The example that I had given previously had to do with the historical events at the beginning of the creation of the universe. That history as narrated by God is totally different than the history of the Materialist or the Theistic Evolutionist.

It's one or the other - the two cannot co-exist. And I haven't even gotten into the theological implications of Evolution or the impact of Evolution on the rest of Scripture (beyond Genesis). One or the other - for or against - no middle ground here.

Bottom line: compatibility of Evolution with the Bible is impossible. Only via distortion can an appearance of compatibility be achieved.

Jorge

So then the only way that Theistic Evolutionists and the Bible can be compatible is if either or both are distorted (pigeonholed?) with one another? I hope I am getting your argument correct. If I am correct in that assumption, then that is what I am having a hard time with it squaring with me. The Bible says nothing about Evolution as far as I can see. But, we can infer a bit from it correct? As an example, in Genesis 1:11-12 God told the earth to create vegetation. But also in Genesis 1:24, God told the earth to produce animals. From my reading of those passages, it looks to me like Evolution in progress. In my personal outlook I don't see a need for distortion or pigeonholing. Would you be kind enough to tell me where I might be wrong and what you think those passages are saying?

As I said, I have a bit of a lack when it comes to fully understanding the debate between Evolution and Creation. I do however, have a fairly firm grasp of genetics. And your explanation (you are what you eat) for humans having the same compositional makeup as soil, I am sorry to say is incorrect. The things you eat do not stick to your genetic makeup. Your genetics are there from birth. Example, no matter how much milk or dairy you consume, the calcium from it will not attach itself to your genetic profile and give it a percentage of more calcium.

I do thank you for your patience with me. I am thinking over what you are saying. Just having a hard time with a few things is all.