To all the creationists denying evolution ....

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 ...[text shortened]... without scriptural foundation and is based entirely on his acceptance of the hypothesis itself.

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.

No, what you demonstrated was your ability to choose what texts to use to contextualize others for purposes of interpretation. The Bible does not tell you which texts must be used to contextualize others. Did the Bible tell you to apply Joseph’s comment about dream interpretation to the whole Bible? Did the Bible tell you that Jesus’ “in the beginning statement” has to refer to the creation? No, it did not. (If one wanted to argue that, one might adopt a literary hermeneutic, and argue from the principle of parallelism as a Hebrew literary device with which Jesus would have been familiar—but you eschew that kind of thing for assertions of “obviousness” and the text being ‘self-explanatory”, and then hide behind the further assertion that anyone who disagrees “has no idea of the text”.)

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]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 r ...[text shortened]... ation in you. Joseph did not say, “Well, dreams come from God, so they’re self-interpreting.” )[/b]

i have demonstrated with reference how it is self interpretative, refute it if you will, with reference if you don't mind.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b][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 th sively from my brief comment, I can only assume you have not investigated the matter seriously.[/b]

do what you will, as yet not one of you have provided the slightest and scantiest piece of evidence to even remotely suggest why we should accept the assertion that the evolutionary process was initiated by God other than the popes acceptance of the hypothesis itself - not even a scantily disguised loin cloth of a reason! cya!

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]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 r ...[text shortened]... ation in you. Joseph did not say, “Well, dreams come from God, so they’re self-interpreting.” )[/b]

Funny, funny.

Verse 8 says that god does the interpreting.
Verse 9 to 11 he tells a dream.
Verse 12 Joseph interpretes the dream.

Is Joseph a god? Another name of Jahve, or what?
I cannaot read anywhere that god interpretes the dream.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do what you will, [b]as yet not one of you have provided the slightest and scantiest piece of evidence to even remotely suggest why we should accept the assertion that the evolutionary process was initiated by God other than the popes acceptance of the hypothesis itself - not even a scantily disguised loin cloth of a reason! cya![/b]

do what you will, [b]as yet not one of you have provided the slightest and scantiest piece of evidence to even remotely suggest why we should accept the assertion that the evolutionary process was initiated by God other than the popes acceptance of the hypothesis itself - not even a scantily disguised loin cloth of a reason! cya![/b]

I have not tried to do that. My only intent was to show that the belief was compatible with Jesus' brief words on the creation. Your initial claim was that Jesus denied the possibility of evolution; I do not see how your quote warrants that conclusion. No where have I tried to prove evolution.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have demonstrated with reference how it is self interpretative, refute it if you will, with reference if you don't mind.

But your supposed refutation is based on a scriptural quotation -- something which requires interpretation to begin with!

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]do what you will, [b]as yet not one of you have provided the slightest and scantiest piece of evidence to even remotely suggest why we should accept the assertion that the evolutionary process was initiated by God other than the popes acceptance of the hypothesis itself - not even a scantily disguised loin cloth of a reason! cya![/b]

I have not tr ...[text shortened]... I do not see how your quote warrants that conclusion. No where have I tried to prove evolution.[/b]

ok my friend, then what is the premise for concluding that it is compatible other than the Popes acceptance of the hypothesis, for i provided examples to that bad ol putty cat Zahlanzi, for example, that according to the creation account, everything was created according, 'to its kind', that is diametrically opposite to the evolutionary hypothesis which states, that fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals, mammals humans blah de blah de blah, thus i stated, with reference that Christ endorsement of the creation account, by its very nature, would negate the possibility of the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis, now that being said, there still is no proposition put forth to say why we should accept anything to the contrary, yes you may dispute Christs claim, yes you may say that it is taken out of context, yes you may endeavor to show that it is open to interpretation, but make with the readies and explain why i should accept that God initiated the evolutionarily process as Zahlanzi, Fabian and others have asserted! for if i am not mistaken, this, as far as i am concerned was the whole crux of the matter.

Originally posted by Conrau K
But your supposed refutation is based on a scriptural quotation -- something which requires interpretation to begin with!

side issue!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have demonstrated with reference how it is self interpretative, refute it if you will, with reference if you don't mind.

I did, in my post just above yours here. I don’t know what you mean by “with reference”? Am I supposed to randomly select some Biblical text that does not appropriately contextualize some other Biblical text? I already noted (1) various possibilities for understanding Jesus’ reference to “the beginning” (including your own, which I did not dismiss), and (2) your wrenching the Joseph verse out of context in your own argument.

Or am I supposed to find some text that clearly supports evolution? I doubt that there is any such text—just as I don’t think any of the texts can be properly taken as a refutation of the theory of evolution. Do you understand what a “category difference” is?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok my friend, then what is the premise for concluding that it is compatible other than the Popes acceptance of the hypothesis, for i provided examples to that bad ol putty cat Zahlanzi, for example, that according to the creation account, everything was created according, 'to its kind', that is diametrically opposite to the evolutionary hypothesis wh ...[text shortened]... ed! for if i am not mistaken, this, as far as i am concerned was the whole crux of the matter.

[b]ok my friend, then what is the premise for concluding that it is compatible other than the Popes acceptance of the hypothesis[/b]

Well, have you ever sought to find out why they believe it compatible? Did you follow Ivanhoe's link?

for example, that according to the creation account, everything was created according, 'to its kind', that is diametrically opposite to the evolutionary hypothesis which states, that fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals, mammals humans blah de blah de blah

I do not see them diametrically opposed. A theist can accept that: reptiles are different to birds in kind and God created them -- whether or not evolutionary theory is true.

thus i stated, with reference that Christ endorsement of the creation account, [b]by its very nature, would negate the possibility of the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis[/b]

Yet no one accepts your interpretation of Christ's words. Vistesd offered several other plausible meanings. And as others have pointed out, you take the quote out of context -- Jesus is referring to the institution of marriage as part of a moral teaching against divorce. Jesus is quite clearly not seeking to expound on the meaning of Genesis but to denounce divorce. (And I am assuming that you are more vehemently opposed to divorce than to evolutionary theory, right?)

but make with the readies and explain why i should accept that God initiated the evolutionarily process as Zahlanzi, Fabian and others have asserted! for if i am not mistaken, this, as far as i am concerned was the whole crux of the matter.

Simply because evolutionary theory is true. Hence you must adapt your interpretation of Genesis.

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!

if what you say is true, and interpretations belong to god, i will reformulate my question. let's hope you will not dodge it this time.

if the bible says 6 days, and all interpretations belong to god, then where in the bible does it say that those are not actually 6 days? because only the bible is the word or god

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok my friend, then what is the premise for concluding that it is compatible other than the Popes acceptance of the hypothesis, for i provided examples to that bad ol putty cat Zahlanzi, for example, that according to the creation account, everything was created according, 'to its kind', that is diametrically opposite to the evolutionary hypothesis wh ...[text shortened]... ed! for if i am not mistaken, this, as far as i am concerned was the whole crux of the matter.

everything was created according to its kind.

yes, everything was created according to its kind through evolution, that at one point there were reptiles and then there were birds. where is the contradiction? does it say in the bible that no animal can evolve from another? why are these ideas diametrically opposed? how can you even oppose them? when one describes the result and another describes the process through which that result was achieved?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
because only the bible is the word or god

I assume that was a typo and you meant "the word of God".
But I find it amazing how many people are convinced that God is incapable of communicating with man in any way other than through the Bible.

On a related note, the Bible is a collection of writings that that have grown over the years with some books having more than one writer and being changed over time etc. If Gods clear intention was the current set of books in the current translation (whatever that is), then does this mean that any prior versions were in fact wrong? It just seems to be rather an odd process for passing a message to the human race. Inspire some writer thousands of years ago to write down something wrong with the knowledge that as it gets changed over the years it will eventually reach the intended audience in its corrected final form. And how do we know that we are the final audience anyway? Maybe it is yet to undergo further changes and the real intended recipients are in the distant future.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I assume that was a typo and you meant "the word of God".
But I find it amazing how many people are convinced that God is incapable of communicating with man in any way other than through the Bible.

On a related note, the Bible is a collection of writings that that have grown over the years with some books having more than one writer and being change ...[text shortened]... is yet to undergo further changes and the real intended recipients are in the distant future.

i am trying to make a point here. i tried to only use words, concepts that he will understand, that he holds true and demonstrate that he interprets some passages and others not, based solely on his reasoning, just as we do. if this doesn't get through to him, i will give up and resume making fun of him and damning my soul for mocking retards.

god seriously frowns on making fun of retards, i will have to pray for hius forgiveness.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the solution is simple, don't read the text and go bother someone else!

Do you deny that acts of creation and evolution are in principle compatible?