To all the creationists denying evolution ....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no Zapansy my friend, its not an interpretation for there is nothing speculative about it, its solid, founded on sound historical knowledge and fact, is culturally accurate, in harmony with the entire canonical work and as i have shown and demonstrated for your amazement and wonderment, is self explanatory!

i do not believe that God created the earth in six literal days, as i have also demonstrated to you at other times!

what do you base your interpretation on? the bible says 6 days. as in a day- night cycle. what gives you the right to say those are not 6 days?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether you take it seriously is neither here nor there, a reference was given, various attempts have been made to discredit the reference, for example,

1. that it is open to interpretation, false! there is nothing to interpret,
2. that it was taken out of context, false! for it is in complete harmony with the bible as a whole
3. that there wa f evolutionary hypothesis nor of creation, its a discussion of whether the two are compatible!

what i can state with crystal clear certainty is, that if you give credence to what Christ states, that we are here as a direct consequence of a creative act there is no room for the evolutionary hypothesis, refute it if you will, with reference if you please!

Is that what Christ states in that verse? That we are here as a "direct consequence of a creative act"? That verse, as far as I can tell, concerns the institution of marriage and how it is putatively God's will that it be between a male and a female and that the union not easily be broken.

Your contention is that Christ's statement is affirming the creation story in Genesis; even if you are right, SO WHAT? What is the rest of your argument? You cannot just quickly conclude from there that there is no room in a Christian's belief structure for evolution. That relies on an assumption that creation and evolution are incompatible. But whether or not they are incompatible is exactly what we are supposed to be debating! Are you just failing to understand the opening post or something? Have you read it carefully? The notion that the truth of genesiac creation account is incompatible with evolution is exactly what the opening post denies! You may not just assume the truth or falsity of the proposition to be debated as a premise in your argument -- that is an instance of begging the question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no Zapansy my friend, its not an interpretation for there is nothing speculative about it, its solid, founded on sound historical knowledge and fact, is culturally accurate, in harmony with the entire canonical work and as i have shown and demonstrated for your amazement and wonderment, is self explanatory!

Or so you believe. Others disagree. If there is disagreement then it can't be as clear as you pretend.

i do not believe that God created the earth in six literal days, as i have also demonstrated to you at other times!
So interpretation is OK sometimes and not others? I thought genesis was quite clear and indisputable when it came to the six days.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or so you believe. Others disagree. If there is disagreement then it can't be as clear as you pretend.

[b]i do not believe that God created the earth in six literal days, as i have also demonstrated to you at other times!
So interpretation is OK sometimes and not others? I thought genesis was quite clear and indisputable when it came to the six days.[/b]

care to make a bet as to what kind of response he will give?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pants and double triple pants, such a stance leads to nothing more than postulation and arguments over semantics and what is more, many of the statements are self explanatory and require no interpretation, for example when Christ stated to the Pharisees, ' have you not read, in the beginning', this is a self explanatory comment, why? because from our nterpretation is incredulous and is nothing more than a cunningly contrived get out clause!

BS, Robbie. 🙂

Semantics is, of course, part of interpretation; semantics is the study of the meaning, and changes/development of meaning , of words and how we use them (a critical factor in translation, for instance—e.g., whether or not a certain word or phrase is, in the original language, used literally or idiomatically, or sometimes this and sometimes that). Semantics is important. Disdain for such things can perhaps itself be used like an “escape clause”, to get out of admitting one’s own hermeneutical responsibility; but there really is no such “escape clause”.

Let’s look at the phrase “once upon a time”. The common usage of that phrase is idiomatic, indicating that what follows is fictional (whether mythology or fable), rather than implying that there actually once was such a time when such-and-such happened. In other words, people do not commonly take that phrase—in English—literally. However, suppose some starts a story with the words, “There once was a time”. With that change in phrasing, can one still be sure, a priori, that the speaker is not referring to an actual time? Or that she is?

Or, how about the phrase, “the beginning of time”? Such a phrase is not even sensible taken literally (it is internally contradictory). However, it might be used perfectly well as a metaphorical statement.

I have chosen those just as pretty neutral examples.

Now, when Jesus used the phrase “in the beginning” (given the context of his speech), he might be using it several different ways, for example:

—Metaphorically;

—Some undefined time in the distant past;

—The advent of the first humans;

—When groups of humans first instituted marriage as a social construct (polygamous or monogamous, secular or sanctified);

—When Jews (Israelites), specifically, first instituted marriage in such a way (that is, referring to Israelite custom specifically); or

—As you interpret it, to the creation of the universe (Genesis).

None of those interpretations seems strained; none alters the point (meaning) of his speech. I reject none of them as a priori “wrong”. Your own reading seems obvious to you only because your own interpretive decision seems obvious to you. But it is not at all, in fact, obvious.

It really doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the Biblical texts or some other texts: it is simply and inescapably impossible to read them without interpretation. And that means making some hermeneutical decisions about the proper way to approach a given text; all exegesis involves hermeneutics. And there is no “escape clause” from that.

That is the sole point (a side issue in this thread) that I am addressing.

Originally posted by vistesd
That is the sole point (a side issue in this thread) that I am addressing.

Hardly a side issue. As I understand it the thread contains the following arguments:
1. Christianity is not incompatible with the Theory of evolution. What some people consider to be conflict can be explained away by understanding the text of the Bible differently (interpretation).
2. Jesus made reference to Genesis and this reference makes it crystal clear that he endorses a literal interpretation of Genesis and Jesus' statement should be taken literally and no other interpretation of them is reasonable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Hardly a side issue. As I understand it the thread contains the following arguments:
1. Christianity is not incompatible with the Theory of evolution. What some people consider to be conflict can be explained away by understanding the text of the Bible differently (interpretation).
2. Jesus made reference to Genesis and this reference makes it crystal c ...[text shortened]... d Jesus' statement should be taken literally and no other interpretation of them is reasonable.

thankyou twhitehead for injecting some clarity into anotherwordly mystical psychadelic type of experience that occurred after reading vistesd text!

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]what i can state with crystal clear certainty is, that if you give credence to what Christ states, that we are here as a direct consequence of a creative act there is no room for the evolutionary hypothesis, refute it if you will, with reference if you please!

Is that what Christ states in that verse? That we are here as a "direct consequence o ...[text shortened]... to be debated as a premise in your argument -- that is an instance of begging the question.[/b]

sorry this has already been covered, i will not do so again, please refer to Zapansys brave but never the less utterly futile attempts!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what do you base your interpretation on? the bible says 6 days. as in a day- night cycle. what gives you the right to say those are not 6 days?

the Bible is able to interpret itself! Did you win your bet Zapansy my friend, i doubt it!

Joseph said to them: “Do not interpretations belong to God? genesis 40:8, yes yes, being the word of the living God, it is able to interpret itself!

read and weep, read and weep!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Bible is able to interpret itself! Did you win your bet Zapansy my friend, i doubt it!

The Bible does not interpret itself. Vistesd has just given an explanation why. The reference to Genesis 40:8 seems to me to be a little left-field -- Joseph is talking about the interpretations of prophetic dreams, not texts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry this has already been covered, i will not do so again, please refer to Zapansys brave but never the less utterly futile attempts!

What's already been covered? The fact that you have no argument here that doesn't just beg the question?

Apart from the fact that you have no argument worth taking seriously, I really don't understand why you seem so confused on this issue. There is absolutely nothing that should make creation and evolution incompatible in principle. Evolutionary theory is not committed to any particular stance on how living things ultimately came to be; so it doesn't preclude there being a creative act that ushered in living things. At the same time, there is nothing inherent to the notion of creation that precludes that which is created from evolving over time once created; so creative action doesn't preclude subsequent evolution. The two are compatible in principle. What's so hard to understand here?

And the notion that your silly Jesus verse supplies you with arsenal to refute the opening post is complete nonsense.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The Bible does not interpret itself. Vistesd has just given an explanation why. The reference to Genesis 40:8 seems to me to be a little left-field -- Joseph is talking about the interpretations of prophetic dreams, not texts.

the Bible is perfectly capable of interpreting itself, but because you and vistesd have absolutely no idea of the text, you are unaware of this!

for example take your own assertion with regard to the Pontifex Maximus statement that Man was infused with a soul? thus when we cross reference texts we can establish that this is erroneous, and come to an accurate knowledge of truth,

thus we learn that animals also are souls,

and with every living soul that is with you, among fowls, among beasts and among all living creatures of the earth with you, from all those going out of the ark to every living creature of the earth genesis 9:10

thus we are able to determine that a soul is simply a living breathing entity, and thus mortal

The soul that is sinning it itself will die - Ecclesiastes 18:4

thus we learn that the soul is mortal, this in turn leads us to an accurate understanding of the condition of the dead

For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten - Ecclesiastes 9:5

this in turn leads us to the realization that Hell cannot be a literal place of torture, for the dead do not experience anything

thus we are able to understand Christ when he states that Lazarus was sleeping

He said these things, and after this he said to them: “Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.”

thus we learn that death is simply a state of unconsciousness, etc etc etc

thus each and every matter may be firmly established in the light of other biblical texts, therefore you're assertion that the bible is unable to interpret itself is simply without foundation as i have clearly demonstrated.

but this is not the issue, i thank you for your candid and significant admission that JP II, used science as a basis for his claim, will you now therefore admit that this claim, that God used the evolutionary process in creation, is without scriptural foundation and is based entirely on his acceptance of the hypothesis itself.

Originally posted by LemonJello
What's already been covered? The fact that you have no argument here that doesn't just beg the question?

Apart from the fact that you have no argument worth taking seriously, I really don't understand why you seem so confused on this issue. There is absolutely nothing that should make creation and evolution incompatible in principle. Evolutionary th ...[text shortened]... lly Jesus verse supplies you with arsenal to refute the opening post is complete nonsense.

the solution is simple, don't read the text and go bother someone else!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Bible is able to interpret itself! Did you win your bet Zapansy my friend, i doubt it!

Joseph said to them: “Do not interpretations belong to God? genesis 40:8, yes yes, being the word of the living God, it is able to interpret itself!

read and weep, read and weep!

the Bible is able to interpret itself!

Since I don’t want your head to crack with any psychedelic experiences, I’ll refrain from trying to explain your error, and just say—

This is plain silliness. (And your Joseph quote is wrenched terribly out of context; it would’ve been much more on point if you were arguing that your dreams—I mean, your readings of the Biblical text—are guided by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration in you. Joseph did not say, “Well, dreams come from God, so they’re self-interpreting.” )

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Bible is perfectly capable of interpreting itself, but because you and vistesd have absolutely no idea of the text, you are unaware of this!

for example take your own assertion with regard to the Pontifex Maximus statement that Man was infused with a soul? thus when we cross reference texts we can establish that this is erroneous, and come t without scriptural foundation and is based entirely on his acceptance of the hypothesis itself.

[b]the Bible is perfectly capable of interpreting itself, but because you and vistesd have absolutely no idea of the text, you are unaware of this![/b][/b]

Let me ask, If it is able to interpret itself, why is there such a multiplicity of interpretations -- schools of exegesis, denominations, churches? How could there be any dissent over a text that is self-interpreting? (Although I am not sure what self-interpreting means)

I will not respond to the rest of your post. Given that your total understanding of the Pope's view of the soul comes exclusively from my brief comment, I can only assume you have not investigated the matter seriously.