Evolution

Yada Wrote:
You need take no man's interpretation, OK, how bout the Holy Spirit's interpretation, if Jesus said "He will lead you into all truth," then what, was He lying?

Along with trying to discern relationships scientific investigations and what is recorded in Scripture - one of my hobbies is what one might call "comparative Christianity."

As pointed out by JS - how can one person tell another that "my interpretation is inspired, and yours is not?" Many Christians I encounter seem anaware of the historical origins for their particular interpretation(s)of the Bible.

Critical portions of the Bible have been interpreted in various ways since the deaths of the Apostles. Most of these differences can be traced historically.

I myself am sort of a "liberal" literalist. I can't claim any real authority for many of my "scientific" views. The main reason I am at this sight is to find out more about how my personal interpretations line up with scientific "discoveries."

I have a personal view - for example - of how plants could have survived without the sun - and still be governed by the reasonable rules of of physics and chemistry.

I wouldn't expect any one else though, to do any more than listen.

 

How do creationists explain the condition known as atavism?
For example why would a whale be born with miniature legs sprouting out of its flanks?

 

_Darth_Brooks_:
To All,

Evolution. Creation.

Two opposing ideologies.

Creationists seem to like to paint it that way, so they clearly see that creationism is an ideology, but evolution is not. Evolution is simply a conclusion of scientific research. If there is a dichotomy, it is science vs creationism.

'Everyman has the right to be wrong in his opinion, but no man has the right to be wrong in his facts.'

Where science has true facts I find no fault; where "science" proposes to have facts drawn from shear conjectural fictions, passed as legitimate hypothesis, I find great fault.

You have made this assertion many times, yet you have not pointed out how the fact of common descent is "drawn from shear conjectural fictions".

Make not mistake that this is not "science" vesus "religion" by any means at all.

That is right, it is science vs creationism. Many creationist seem to have trouble seeing that it is possible to be religious without being a creationist.

It surely isn't.
In this thread it's often been misrepresented that way, but it is in fact a deception to believe so, and to have completely missed the point of the exchanges up to this post.

I have seen creationists try to make it a science vs religion issue again and again, but I have seen those who accept evolution explaining again and again that it is not science vs religion.

These words are not my own. They are a quote extracted from an E-mail I received from a gracious and generous individual named T. Wallace...

"One lesson I have learned in the realm of the internet is that for the most part, in open debates with evolutionists, you can't win. Why?

Because you are wrong?

Not because the truth is weaker than men's lies,

Note the assumption that creationism is truth, and the accusation that "svolutionists" are all liers.

but because liars have an unlimited supply of material from which to fight, and because believing their lies (and persuading others to believe them) is of such tremendous importance to them, that they will not give up in their efforts to confound and confute anything said in defense of the truth.

A more explicit accusation that all "evolutionists" are liers.

They know that if they just hang in there and keep getting the last word, always spouting some kind of scientific-sounding rebuttal, they'll wear the Christian down.

Now the implication that creationist = Christian. There are many creationists who are members of other faiths, and there are many Christians who are not creationists. Remember, this is not a science vs religion thread.

"They'll bury you in details and endless rabbit trails, nit-picking over your choice of words, pretending to misunderstand simple concepts you express that a twelve-year-old would readily grasp.

The implication here is that if the explanation is complex, then it must be wrong. There are many things that a twelve-year-old simply does not understand, and the questions of a twelve-year-old are often naive. That does not make the twelve-year-old right. It seems that creationism is popular because it offers simplistic answers.

They ignore your own direct challenges, or dismiss them as unworthy of being addressed.[/b]

I have seen the reverse here. or example, when challenged to check on someone's credentials I did, and then was criticized for doing so. I was challenged to explain the difference between common descent and the theory of evolution, and I did so. I was challenged to explain the evidence for common descent, and I did so. Meanwhile, creationists here have been repeatedly challenged to produce an example of primary research based on creationism that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but they have dodged and refused. Creationists here have been repeatedly challenged to present any evidence against evolution

 

_Darth_Brooks_:
These are not my words, but the words of a Creationist whom I addressed regarding his opinion. I decided to allow him to answer, rather than paraphrasing his lengthy response. He is not interested in debate, but as a gracious personal favor value time out from his busy life to offer comment.

It's not a "tirade," but an accurate description of many evolutionists' approach to the subject of origins. Calling it a "tirade" is an exaggeration, deliberately coloring it as if it were unreasonable or too emotionally charged to be taken seriously.

I believe that "tirade" is an accurate description, and I do not appreciate the claim that I have deliberately "exaggerated". The rules for posting here (I assume) apply whether the words are your own or posted for somebody else.

What other purpose might "Professor Peez" have for putting the word evolutionists in quotation marks than to suggest that the conduct being attributed to evolutionists is questionable?

That makes no sense. There is no evidence to support the accusations being made, but I put "evolutionist" in quotes simply because nobody has ever defined the term (despite my having repeatedly asked). I take it to mean ?anyone who accepts evolution', but this is not clear (it could refer only to those who actually study it, for example).

It's a transparent and deceptive ploy -- one of many tools invoked by people attempting to defend the indefensible.

There is no point to reading this post further. Please refrain from posting such inflammatory material.

Peez

 

solojones:
Some thoughts I had... the original question was why do many Fundamentalist Christians not believe in evolution. Well, it's not just the Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists are those that add to the Bible to make it fit their standards.

Let us not get into a debate about exactly what a "fundamentalist" is, but please be aware that not everyone is using the term as you have defined it.

And you have the other extreme who take away from the Bible to make it fit their standards. Then there are the Bible believing Christians, who believe it as it is in it's entirity [sic]. What you may view as "Fundamentalists" are not that at all, it's just that there are far too many people proclaiming to be Christians who aren't really living by the standards of the Bible who skew the world's view of what Christianity really is.

We could debate the meaning of "Christian" as well, but let's not exclude people who sincerely believe that they are Christians. I would say that if you accept that there was someone names Jesus, and that he was the son of God and died to bring "salvation" to humanity, then you are a Christian. There is a long history of different groups of Christians calling each other heretics, but it is reasonable to accept someone as a Christian even if they do not believe in the literal truth of every detail of the Bible. YMMV.

As has been pointed out, the church used to believe the world was flat, and that everything revolved around the earth. Well, it's not the church's job to decide these things, but the Bible's. It never states in the Bible that the world is flat or that everything revolves around it.

It certainly implies it.

BUT, it does state that the Universe and everything in it was created by God, and in 6 days. This is not a Fundamentalist view, but a view of the Bible.

It is fundamentalist in the sense that the Bible is being taken literally in every detail, something that many "Christians" do not accept (depending, of course, on how one defines a "Christian").

If you say you are a Christian, I think you should be believing the whole Bible and not adding or subtracting to it.

Do you mean literally, or is it possible to accept it as metaphorical?

Sure, churches can be corrupt. Most of that corruption stems from the very problem of them trying to make things "nice" to please everyone, instead of sticking to what it says.

It is difficult to say with any certainty what the motivations of biblical scholars might have been. They might just have been making an honest effort to understand what was, to them, the source of Truth.

So the initial question is really misdirected. Bible believing Christians don't believe in evolution simply because the Bible states otherwise.

I think that "Bible believing Christians" might be over-simplifying it, but I would agree that creationists generally reject evolution not because of the evidence, but simply because it conflicts with their interpretation of religious text.

Peez

 

phantom,

by all means feel free to go for it,

but remember that the scriture states grasses and fruit bearing trees etc on the day before the sun was placed in the sky.

This is not a difficult concept for me, since one look around the universe tells me that if there is a God at all, (and I know that there is) then He has to be more powerful, more creative, and more capaple that we will ever get our tiny minds around.

Galaxies, countless in number, are proof that HE CAN DO ALOT, IN A SHORT TIME.

as to the grass and fruit, how do you expect them to produce fruit and seed without chlorophyll and a an environment capable of supporting that life, i.e. dry land (not molten), moisture, not sulfurous clouds, and of course sunlight for photosynthesis to occur.

If the earth cooled slowly, over millions of years, that would not be "the dry land" that God created in a day. If the grasses and trees were created in a day, and given light the next, no problem, light is required for sugars to form and things to bear fruit and seed according to its kind.

then too you have the dilemna of how did the grasses and lichen decide to become redwoods or grapefruit trees, was all that just "chance cross pollination"? Or did God mean it when He said He created things as they now exist, that He, not time or chance, is the author of all this variety.

 

Yada:Those are nice sentiments JS, but aren't you forgetting that His Word says "my people perish without knowledge".


JS :Wouldn't that mean that we should analyze and think through the Bible, instead of taking everything at face value?


Yada >>>>>>Yes JS, it does mean that, it also means we should take into account the full counsel of God. That includes, not just what was said and written but how Jesus Himself interpreted what was written. Examples abound, the prophetic was quoted umpteen times by Him, ?this fulfills this? (prophecy encoded within other stories), etc. Be aware, Jesus had three years to refute, to say it is just guys that wrote that, or it?s just stories, did He ever? NO. Instead, He said,? it is written, My word says, the word says, when Noah went into the ark, have you not read?just as Jonah was three days in the belly of the whale,? etc, etc. In other words, at every turn Jesus proclaimed the authenticity of scripture and proclaimed it the Word of the Living God. If my taking His word for it over yours offends you, I AM SORRY, BUT so be it.
I do not ?take everything at face value? I study for hours on end most every week. Learning to discern the spiritual meanings and metaphors is equally important to the walk of a believer. That does not mean however, that God did not want us to take certain things at face value: examples abound, He did die to pay for our sins, He is coming back just as He left and every eye will see Him (the dead as well).
He did create this planet and everything on it, and He never says he made a soup that one day became a soufflé, got bored and when on to become a standard poodle. The trouble with a lot of believers is they never stop to consider, did God say what He meant or mean what He said. My premise is He says exactly what He means, that He may mean more than we first see, but indeed He means what He says as well.

Yada:the idea that God wanted us to glean some things from His word is neither novel nor unnecessary. In fact, I would count it as crucial; not as important as love naturally true, but if perishing without it is a given concept, then it is no small thing either.


JS: I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. Yes, God wants us to learn from the Bible, and understand the path that humanity took leading up to His son's birth and sacrifice so that we may live in Him. Does that mean, though, that because I might take the account of creation as symbolic instead of literal, that I am not saved? I have accepted Jesus as the son of God, that he died for my sins, and I love and respect God more than I have anything or anyone else. Is that not what I need to do to be saved?

Yada >>>>JS, Realizing you are a sinner, and that He indeed came and paid for your sins is of course the most important part of your faith, and what you need to be saved.
However, ?He is able to complete that which He has begun? is a concept spoken of by Paul as the continuing of our instruction as to those things that pertain to godliness. Hence the Christian life is more than a stamp on the forehead upon the initial acceptance; the amazing grace begins there yes, but does not end there. Otherwise Jesus would have said ?go into all the earth and get everyone to say the sinner?s prayer.? He did not do that.
He said ?go into all the earth, telling the good news of the gospel (that He paid for us; that God came to earth, died and rose again) AND He added, and make disciples of all men.? A disciple is a person willing to learn and be taught, that is why Paul speaks of the Spirit now convicting, now excusing, and he speaks of ?the author and finisher of our faith (Jesus) being able to complete that which He has begun.?
Question: why say there is something to be completed if there is nothing further to do, learn, or complete? Answer, the question is rhetorical, of course God is in the process of trying to get us to come into the fullness that is in Christ. That includes a transformation of our old nature (old man) into a new creature in Christ, one able to ?pick up h

 

Yada (one of my favorite posters) wrote:

but remember that the scripture states grasses and fruit bearing trees etc on the day before the sun was placed in the sky.

This is not a difficult concept for me, since one look around the universe tells me that if there is a God at all, (and I know that there is) then He has to be more powerful, more creative, and more capaple that we will ever get our tiny minds around.

Or did God mean it when He said He created things as they now exist, that He, not time or chance, is the author of all this variety

Hi Yada. I believe everything you wrote - above. Like me - your religious life started with spiritual experience - so you trust the Scriptures. But - you have a mind and see that not all "facts" are explained in detail in scripture.

So - you try to arrive at some sort of synthesis. One concept that has helped my in my quest - and, that I have already put forward here is the probability that - many of the "beliefs" you have about what the Bible "says" may be based, in part, on what someone - maybe a trusted person, taught you about what the Bible "says."

If you will do an independent study - of what the text(s) actually "say," - you may find that there are alternative interpretations that are both reasonable and "loyal" to basic "Christian" thinking.

If your "reading" then, only supports one of these - you might try and trace thy origin for that interpretation. Most likely - it will notlead you back into the Bible for an "authoritative" interpretation. It will have arisen at some point in history since the deaths of Jesus and the Apostles.

If it is possible that your "take" is not the only possible "true" one, then - you might look at what science has uncovered for some guidance.

One example that I have sort of cited before - I don't see the Bible has saying - absolutely or literally - that this earth was the first creation of God in the universe. Therefore, for example - I can personally have a "theory" that - before the earth was placed in its present location vis'a 'vis the sun, it got its light from an alternate source that was as or more effective than the sun.

If I don't limit the creative "days" to 24 hours or 1,000 years, but, to a day that had a morning and evening - but whose "length" was measured in terms of a referrence point beyond our present understanding - I can still be a "literalist."

What allows me to do this is just to accept the notion that the earth was not God's first creation - and, that, in this imponderably gigantic universe, there may be longer days somewhere - where the earth might have been put together before it was brought here.

It was difficult for me when I first realized that not all of my "science related" biblical views were as firm as I had thought. If I look at the way God works in my own life - I see a remarkably coordinated combination of "nature" and "nurture."

I have no doubt that He is directing it - but - He uses the "materials" in my life to teach me. I look for similar patterns in His other occupations.

I welcome something from the Scriptures which trumps this view. My whole quest here is to remain a Bible literalist and include other "facts." I absolutely draw certain lines, though - and respect anyone else's as well.



.

 

Keep in mind the scripture can be interpeted many different ways. There's even an example of this in the New Testament, where Satan is attempting to interpet scripture one way, and Jesus producing a counter-point of sorts.

BTW what about the bible and Astronomy? The bible doesn't make any mention, it appears, of the outer planets--simply the moon and sun(Although stars play a big role).
Some theories have speculated that many of the angels and symbolism of the bible actually reflect stellar phenomena. Take Joshua's cosmic "Blazing sword" for example--could it have been a comet? Or what about apocalyptic stars from heaven? Meteors? In a similar metaphor, Josepheus, the Jewish historian, stated that a sword appeared ominously over Jerusalem in 66. Interestingly, this matches *exactly* with a comet going through the area....

 

thanks PW, thank God we can keep questioning and not check our brains at the door. I do not deny God could have done it other ways, He's God, He can do whatever He wants. My only thought is, why would He not specify.
My Hebrew came in handy, in Hebrew there are several words sometimes for one english word, and vice versa. Example: there are several words for different types of love, in english, the word love is used to translate several different concepts from the hebrew and greek; conversely in the case of the word for weeks and days, Hebrew can have weeks of days (7 days), or weeks of weeks (49 days), or of months, or of years. Each has a different Hebrew root, and the word day, as in 24 hrs, also has a specific root. The evening and the morning, is the word for one literal twenty four hour period.
Englishmen did not always understand the nuances of the Holy Language after 1500 years of not using it, hence all English translations fail in some respects to convey the original meaning or text as dictated by the Lord.

I too have looked long and hard at many of the origin theories, and if time were not a factor right now, would love to discuss them all. Having studied catastrophy, gap, Hugh Ross, and a host of others I am still left with some basic questions as to why God would not be straight up.

Remember, there is a split all around the planet, deep upon the ocean floor, looks like we were split open (like the baseball stitching on a ball) with canyons many times wider and deeper than the Grandcanyon, (hard to erode like that UNDER water) but if the "fountains of the deep sprang forth", as the Bible says, then it could be explained. There is enough underground water to cover the planet.

I am both a literalist and a spiritualist.
God has had many things happen literally, which Christ Himself confirms the truth of, example, Jonah in the whale, or Christ saying He saw Satan fall from heaven as lightening, meaning He was in Heaven, and indeed cast him out, as scripture states in another place. Jesus could easily have said "this is only metaphor, as He did do when explaining the parable of the sower, first saying "the seed is sown" then explaining, "the seed is the word of God"...
but He did not, He said the opposite.

the thing is, in many instances He confirmed the actual event, that is, He states it actually happened as described. Assuming He would know, I take as literal that which I see no indication that God meant as metaphor only.

In fact, in all cases, my discovery is this: God set the stage, BY ALLOWING a physical event TO TEACH a spiritual truth. In other words, the whole book is by design, a message behind historical events.

While it is certainly true that scripture has encoded within the actual physical event much spiritual revelation, that is not to say that the event itself did not literally occur just as stated. That is part of the beauty of God's Word, it has double, triple meanings, often.

I have posted an explaination of Mary's name and how God designed the place Marah to confirm why He choose that name to be born through; its on the Bible thread, if you would like I can post more things of that nature there.

 

Yada Wrote:

and the word day, as in 24 hrs, also has a specific root. The evening and the morning, is the word for one literal twenty four hour period.

Hi. Thanks for your posts. I would really be interested in learning more about the connection between the "original" Hebrew in Genesis and 24 hour days. I am ignorant in this area. Maybe you could give me some leads so I can study it.

I am a basic literalist because I don't beleive the Lord would fool around in the Scriptures.

However - I also don't believe He deliberately "planted" compelling scientific "evidence" in the physical world to force us to choose between those "facts" and the Scripures.

I am at this thread to learn all I can. Right now - I am being diverted towards the Flood evidence, or lack thereof.

On here, I am becoming convinced that the "hole" in Theory of Evolution created by the lack of an adequate scientific explanation for a natural mechanism powerful enough to create complicated structures and reasonable "links" between groups of species places the entire Theory on par with the explanations in the Bible.

Neither stands on its own, rationally. Both require the "believer" to fill in the gaps with what I would call "faith." In a contest of faith, I will choose the Scriptures.

 

Great questions PW,

Take God literally, but don?t check your brains at the door, that should be written over every churches entrance!!!! Believers are never told to NOT study, in fact, scripture says the opposite, we are to study, AND gain knowledge, of scripture, and the world around us, in order to be good stewards, and be able to ?give a reason for the hope that is in us?. Indeed the more I study, the more convinced I become that the Biblical account is accurate. Science is a tool to help us in life, as long as it does not become squirrelly science, which refuses to look at anything that might contradict one of its ?discoveries? I?m all for it.


Remember, the Bible said the earth was round, that it orbited (had a circuit). That there were rivers in the sea, that certain foods were toxic, and it did that thousands of years before man would discover the science that proved these things to be true.


My take is we should indeed study the possibilities.


While I do believe God's Word is true, I also believe the earth bears witness to those truths, however, finding the evidence can be a bit elusive of a task. Couple this with the desire of some to not believe or refute any and every thing in God's word and you indeed have a formula for confusion.


Rather than try to fit things into any particular model, i.e. fit the findings to the Bible, or, fit the findings to Darwin; I believe the only rational approach is to really look at ALL the evidence, both pro and con. Otherwise we are all just blind men feeling different parts of the elephant, none concluding anything approximating the truth.


That said, are you of a scientific bent?
My favorite physicist is

http://www.ldolphin.org/


He has a terrific search engine
You can find volumes on any topic there


For a glimpse at the foolishness of assuming we know all, check this page


http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=34

You see, there is much info out there to refute the entire concept of slow fossilization.
There are even trees buried in the mud layer around our new volcano (Mt. St. Helens) that disproves the entire concept of how quickly layers can form and debris can be imbedded.
(Evolutionists would say it took millions of years, but we all know it took only days or weeks, because we all were here and witnessed it!!!!)


It is apparent that there is a wealth of information that does call seriously into question our assumptions concerning time lines,


I am particularly impressed with some of the films from the Creation Network (on Sky Angel) concerning the formation of the Grand Canyon, and how it may easily have been formed just as the canyons around Mt. St. Helens were (in days not millennia.)


I have been to Montana and Crater Lake to study the geology, it indeed appears this continent had massive upheaval, tectonically speaking parts both China and Polynesia broke loose and collided with the American plate and are attached (parts of them obviously) to the Oregon coast.


The fossil layers there indicate entirely different flora and fauna, life the NW neither can nor does support. This collision would account for the vast row of volcanoes along the west coast.


Go to map quest and type in Yellowstone, now click on the Arial photo feature. As you zoom out, on either the map, or the photo feature you discover half the state is a giant volcanic crater. Has a collision produced those explosions? Drive through the region and you see up thrusts of about 45 degrees in all the mountain strata. Some force shoved trillions of pounds, thousands of layers into huge formations standing some almost on end. The force of those upheavals rivals anything we could produce with every nuclear weapon we have blown up all at once.


In other words something extremely major happened (and since there are sea creatures fossilized in even the top layers on the highest mountains?.it follows that whatever happened there had to have been major, at one time water everywhere??? (shrimp don?t usually go hiking in the Rockies

 

PS, forgot the most important part,

it is no longer necessary to be a scholar or spend years in study to discover the Hebrew roots.

There are many good tools, Bible Works is excellent, albeit expensive.

for a free version of Strong's Concordance, online, go to:

blueletterbible.org

just click on which chapter verse you want, or type in a word or phrase and search.

once your verse pops ups click on it, this will take you to exactly where it is in scripture:

you will then see several little blue boxes just to the left of the verse

click on the box marked "C" for concordance.

this will pull up the entire verse in Hebrew or Greek, and you can then click on each word, and the original language definitions will appear. Click then on each numeric reference to search the roots.

this means you can learn in moments what once took hours. Have fun!!

 

Hi. Thanks again for the effort. I spent much of the day surfing the net on the "Flood" from a variety of viewpoints. If you type in "The Genesis Flood," (I don't know how to "post" a hypertext link) it comes closest to my own views.

The "scariest" one was an "ex-creation scientist" turned "Biblical Evolutionist." He had the "best evidence" against a young earth model.

Thanks for the Hebrew, etc., links. One thing that jumps out at me, though, is that a "day" is described in Scripture - with an evening and a morning, before the sun was manifested, created, put in place, etc.

I am no scientist - I have legal training. Just from syntax, mentioning a morning and evening day before the sun was placed in its place relative to the earth is enough for me to believe that the days first described may have been longer than 24 hours.

I suspect - even in the Hebrew or whatever, a "day" would be defined as "morning and evening" cycle - which now, of course, is 24 hours.

I got "really brave" and looked at all of the hominid fossils and their dates of discovery, etc., which included some creationist rebuttals. I have never "gone this far before."

I am working on a constructing a theory which focuses on testing, scientifically, the unproven hypotheses in the Theory of Evolution. I think it can be done.

Hope there are still some of us at the thread.

All the best, PW

 

yes, I will have to respond later, its all vewwwry intewesting dare wabbit....

sufferin succotash...and speaking o succotash where did Darth Brooks go?

He made some very interesting points, I miss seeing real brains put ta woyik !!!

 

Have to correct you on the whole "Nobody thought the Earth was round except the Bible people"

The Greek God,Atlas, wasn't carrying a pancake. He was carrying a globe. So the Greeks, at least, accepted the Earth was round. There's a ton of ancient art which confirms this. Supposedly, they probably deduced this by looking at the shapes of the two closest stellar bodies-the moon and the sun, respectively.
The thought that the Earth was flat didn't really surface until the dark ages, a time when the Church went totally overboard.

 

PEEZ Wrote:

There are many lines of evidence that establish common descent as a fact without indicating the specific evolutionary lineages. An example that I have already given is a tree standing alone in a field. We can see that the leaves in the crown are all on the same tree (and we can test them to compare DNA and confirm this), but we do not know exactly which branch is holding which leaves. Similarly all the evidence indicates that the species alive today are "leaves" on a great "tree", but we do not know all of the "branches" that underlie these "leaves".

Hi. The thread seems to be winding down a bit. Anyway -thanks again for your time.

I am seriously working to construct a testable theory and do it properly. Maybe then I will pass the class. So - here are some sample scenerios.

1. My son, Charles, is now in high school - and he believes the ToE hook, line and sinker. I am beginning to suspect that I am not his real father.

Theory: Charles is not my actual descendant.

Hypothesis: My wife, Daria, was impregnated by someone other than me. I have no idea who.

Test: DNA tests on me and Charles reveal that I could not have been been his father.

Fact: Charles is not descended from me.

2. My other son, John Maynard, now looks suspicious as well.

Theory: My son, John Maynard, is not my actual descendant.

Hypothesis: (He looks an awfully lot like my fraternity brother, Stephen Gould). My wife was impregnated by Stephen Gould and my "son" John is actually a descendant of Stephen and Daria.

Tests: A DNA sample is taken from John. We try and locate Stephen, but find out he is deceased and there is no DNA available. Daria breaks down and confesses that Stephen was indeed the father. She produces photos and a motel receipt from applicable times. However, the private detective I hired to look for Stephen belatedly locates medical records which show that Stephen was incapable of conceiving a child.

Fact: My son, John Maynard, is not a descendant of Stephen Gould.

Are either or both of the above scenerios properly constructed theories?

An answer will help me to move forward. Thanks again - if you are still around.

PW

 

no offense Chris, but the Greeks also thought the whole thing was being held up by turtles.

when asked, well what holds up the turtles???? the reply was turtles, more turtles, its turtles all the way down!!!!

whereas the scripture says He hung the earth on nothing, i.e. suspended it, which is true.

 

"when asked, well what holds up the turtles???? the reply was turtles, more turtles, its turtles all the way down!!!!"

That actually comes from an urban legend; in the story, a famous scientist [whose name changes to reflect whoever's popular at the time] is at a conference, where an anonymous weirdo rebukes his theories on the state of the Earth, arguing instead that the world is a turtle (or on the back of a turtle, depending on the version of the story), which in turn stands on four larger turtles. Asked what those turtles stand on... well, you know how the story goes, but there's nothing to suggest that it was ever more than a story, and it certainly had nothing to do with the ancient Greeks.

The Greek structure of the world had the sky (personified as a god) on top, his mate the Earth below, and the Underworld beneath that--but that was as deep as it got.

"Remember, the Bible said the earth was round, that it orbited (had a circuit)."

That's certainly a very liberal interpretation of the text.

 

The bible also states that the world rests on pillars...

 

? Humm...where'd it say that? ?

 

The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them...
-1 Samuel

 

1 Samuel 2:8? Hannah's prayer?

Then Hannah prayed and said:

"My heart rejoices in the LORD;
in the LORD my horn(strength) is lifted high.
My mouth boasts over my enemies,
for I delight in your deliverance.

(goes on thru 2, 3, 4, 5, all the way down to 8

Heraises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
and has them inherit a throne of honor.

"For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's;
upon them he has set the world.

(the prayer going all thru 9, 10, and 11)

Uhmm...I'm quoting someone: "In Samuel, you're talking about people...long, long ago, who thought that the sun rotated around the earth, I mean, you know." Humm?

 

If we take that explanation though, that means it's not literal, which could also imply that the creation account is not literal.

Some biblical passages also have comparitive meanings as well.

 

Dear Chris

The simplest way to arrive at a correct understanding of scripture is to have a ready mind and willingness to allow the Lord to inform our concepts, for He is the greatest of teachers.
One obvious outcome of this approach is that study of, and curiosity toward, what is really being said becomes the norm. ?Without understanding the people perish,? so says scripture.

The roots of words lend much understanding.
The word in question, Pillar is the word 'mawtszook.' In Hebrew the meme, or what we might consider the M has several connotations dependant in part on it?s associative vowel and the roots attached to it. This sound is associated with several concepts, one of which is the center, bowel, or heart of a matter. It is therefore commonly used of womb words, and spills over from the mother concepts to those of birth or distress.

Couple this with the other half of the root word under contention, zoook, or tszook, a word meaning foundation or center, or even pillar, (in one source a molten center is used) connotations include a foundation or structure of support.

Together we see pillars of the earth as a concept of the center of the earth, under stress, the foundations of which are held together, not by coincidence alone but by the actual will and decree of the Living God. He keeps the womb and center of the earth (though in distress) through His foundations (Pillars or Own will).

The Hebrews also understood the pillars on either side of the entrance to Solomon?s Temple as being reflective of the One whom they sought. Hence the titles Pillars of Counsel (or Wisdom) and of Strength were given as their names.

Obviously they never thought the rocks or pillars themselves were capable of giving wisdom or counsel or strength. They were representative concepts of the One who could give such things, whose presence was found within the temple. (They never believed the rocks spoke or counseled, unlike their pagan neighbors who did believe such things)

Likewise the concept of pillars ?beneath or within the bowels of the earth? (i.e. in its womb) are metaphorical of the concept that all things are held together by Him, as proclaimed.

Hbr 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Jhn 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Hebrew language is rich in spirituality and metaphorical concepts revealing the Divine nature within the text of every word.

The Greek language also, was one chosen by God to reveal the New Testament and contains myriad profound concepts.

However, the pagan concepts of turtles, or Atlas, or any other such notion have nothing to do with the truth of what this place or the Creator is about or like.

hope that helps
yada