A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

The difference is only in regards to differing translations, and whether you like it or not, it was the CC that chose the canon that you use.

That simple is not true. The Protestant canon was established by Protestant scholars.

To say that "the Catholics had nothing to do with [your] Bible" is simply so terribly wrong. But like when discussing the ToE, you never let facts interfere with your opinion.

You would;t now a scientific fact it bit you you know where.

And what evidence can you present for this? It took decades for the CC to select the canon, and many books were highly conjectural in the selection process.

Let me put in a way that even an evolutionist can understand.

Catholic scholars studying and discussing and deciding in their church.

At a different time and place, Protestant scholars studying, discussing and deciding.

For example, what we call the Apocrypha were so hotly debated that they were set aside because no agreement could be reached.

That is what the Catholics did.

Centuries later, Luther put them in his original Bible written in German.

He was part of the Protestant scholars and they had rejected the Apocrypha. Luther also want to rejected the book of James, but was out voted by the PROTESANT SCHOLARS who decided the Protestant canon.

But back to the first sentence you wrote, namely why didn't you even look as it would have taken literally seconds? Are you that afraid of the truth, regardless as to what it may be? And you do the same thing when discussing the ToE. What are you afraid of?

 

[omega2xx]

Good luck converting people to your religion. Jesus would be so proud of you.

WE were discussing the ToE, not my religion.

 

[gnostic]

It does not. The Protestant scholars examined each book. They accepted some and rejected others.

Whether it be Protestant or Catholic...or even Orthodox canon...it is all a decision made by men, what to accept and what to reject, none of these decisions were of divine origin.

Beside the canon, none of the scriptures were written by god, so the question of being "canonical" is rather moot, don't you think?

That simple is not true. The Protestant canon was established by Protestant scholars.

So what?

You don't think the Catholic have scholars too? Or the Orthodox?

You think the Protestant scholars are the only ones who can get the scholarship right with the bible?

And large part of the bible weren't even written by Christians. What Christians referred to as the "Old Testament", the Hebrew Scriptures known as the Tanakh, were Christians, and they have studied their own scriptures.

The Torah, or the first set of books traditionally said to attribute the authorship to Moses, is the core system of belief (and writings) for Judaism.

But it is only half of what they believe in are not written. The Oral Torah have centuries of oral transmission, but not to replace the Written Torah, but to supplement them. The Oral Torah was meant to explain some of the ambiguous passages of the Hebrew bible.

Fearing that everything may be lost after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, the rabbinic Jews not only set out to write the Hebrew bible in Hebrew, ie the Masoretic Text (MT), but to also record the Oral Torah in the Talmud, Mishnah and Midrash.

Some of these knowledge clearly predated in the Talmud and Midrash, can be found in some of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran.

A lof of modern English translations, including those Protestant-approved Bible, were mostly translated from the Masoretic Text. The King James Version (KJV) on the Old Testament, were largely translated from Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text as the main source, supplemented with the occasion passages from the Greek Septuagint.

Metis is correct to say that it is more to do with translations than with canons of the Protestant churches.

And I believe that someone has already mentioned (I forgot who mention this) that the original Luther German bible (1522-1534) also included the Apocrypha, which are not found in the majority of Protestant bible.

So really, the canons are dependent on which church or sect are followed.

You stated that learning the history of the origin of the bible and the different canons are irrelevant, but when actual fact, it does matter to you that the Protestant canon is followed.

 

[gnostic]

WE were discussing the ToE, not my religion.

No, this thread is not about ToE at all.

In the OP, Skwim presented a challenge to creationists to provide evidences for creationism and the creator god without referring to evolution.

And I must say that you have failed miserably in validating your belief in a god and your religion.

 

[omega2xx]

Whether it be Protestant or Catholic...or even Orthodox canon...it is all a decision made by men, what to accept and what to reject, none of these decisions were of divine origin.

More pontification with no evidence.

Beside the canon, none of the scriptures were written by god, so the question of being "canonical" is rather moot, don't you think?

Only if you know what you are talking abut. When it comes to Christianity and science, you have long way to go.

So what?

You don't think the Catholic have scholars too? Or the Orthodox?

You think the Protestant scholars are the only ones who can get the scholarship right with the bible?

Of course the Catholics had scholars and many of them were very good. That is one reason both have the same NT canon.

And large part of the bible weren't even written by Christians. What Christians referred to as the "Old Testament", the Hebrew Scriptures known as the Tanakh, were Christians, and they have studied their own scriptures.

That's right. Everyone gets to do what they think is best.

The Torah, or the first set of books traditionally said to attribute the authorship to Moses, is the core system of belief (and writings) for Judaism.

Right again. Your on a roll.

But it is only half of what they believe in are not written. The Oral Torah have centuries of oral transmission, but not to replace the Written Torah, but to supplement them. The Oral Torah was meant to explain some of the ambiguous passages of the Hebrew bible.

3 in a row. There is hope for you yet.

Fearing that everything may be lost after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, the rabbinic Jews not only set out to write the Hebrew bible in Hebrew, ie the Masoretic Text (MT), but to also record the Oral Torah in the Talmud, Mishnah and Midrash.

Right again. The problem is there is no evidence that was an oral Torah.


Some of these knowledge clearly predated in the Talmud and Midrash, can be found in some of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran.

A lof of modern English translations, including those Protestant-approved Bible, were mostly translated from the Masoretic Text. The King James Version (KJV) on the Old Testament, were largely translated from Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text as the main source, supplemented with the occasion passages from the Greek Septuagint.

They we not. That were translated from the available mss.

Metis is correct to say that it is more to do with translations than with canons of the Protestant churches.

And I believe that someone has already mentioned (I forgot who mention this) that the original Luther German bible (1522-1534) also included the Apocrypha, which are not found in the majority of Protestant bible.

So really, the canons are dependent on which church or sect are followed.

You stated that learning the history of the origin of the bible and the different canons are irrelevant, but when actual fact, it does matter to you that the Protestant canon is followed.

What I said is that knowing the history of the church will not help anyone understand the Bible.

 

[omega2xx]

No, this thread is not about ToE at all.

In the OP, Skwim presented a challenge to creationists to provide evidences for creationism and the creator god without referring to evolution.

And I must say that you have failed miserably in validating your belief in a god and your religion.

And you have failed miserably in validating your belif that God does not exist.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, this thread is not about ToE at all.

In the OP, Skwim presented a challenge to creationists to provide evidences for creationism and the creator god without referring to evolution.

And I must say that you have failed miserably in validating your belief in a god and your religion.

If you ask creationists to make a positive case for creationism, they invariably fall back into their comfort zone.....attacking evolution. That's because creationism has no independent scientific basis; rather it's entirely based on a particular translation of the Christian Bible and nothing else.

There's absolutely no scientific reason to conclude that the universe and earth are less than 10,000 years old.

There's absolutely no scientific reason to conclude that the entire earth was flooded ~4,000 years ago and all life on earth wiped out except what rode aboard a wooden boat.

There's absolutely no scientific reason to conclude that groups of organisms were spontaneously and separately created less than 10,000 years ago,

There's absolutely no scientific reason to conclude that humans are completely unrelated to any other organism.


But if you throw in the Bible and a literal interpretive framework, now you have reasons to reach those conclusions.....entirely religious reasons however.

 

[gnostic]

And you have failed miserably in validating your belif that God does not exist.

Again, this thread is about creationists stating and supporting their claims that creation happened the way Genesis say it did, and that God did it.

Nothing that I might say will be relevant, because I am not a creationist, so the thread is not addressed to me.

Do you have evidences that God is real or the 6-day creation happened?
Or that donkey and serpent can talk in human languages?
Or perhaps you have evidences for the Flood?
Or do you evidences to support dinosaurs lived around the same time as man?
Or that people speaking only one language, but then speaking all different languages (Tower of Babel) in an instant or on the same day?
Or perhaps, you can provide evidences that Egypt and Uruk (Erech) didn't exist before the Flood?

 

[Ouroboros]

WE were discussing the ToE, not my religion.

To be a Christian is to always be a witness. Everything you do and say is a testimony of your faith.

Seeing how you discuss ToE and the topic of creationism in this thread, there's no need to discuss your religion. You already have shown what kind of person you are and what you stand for.

 

[omega2xx]

If you ask creationists to make a positive case for creationism, they invariably fall back into their comfort zone.....attacking evolution. That's because creationism has no independent scientific basis; rather it's entirely based on a particular translation of the Christian Bible and nothing else.

I attack evolution on a scientific basis, not on religion.

There's absolutely no scientific reason to conclude that the universe and earth are less than 10,000 years old.

Irrelevant. The Bible does not give the age of the earth. Ther eis absolutly no scientific reason to conclude the earth is billions of years old.

There's absolutely no scientific reason to conclude that the entire earth was flooded ~4,000 years ago and all life on earth wiped out except what rode aboard a wooden boat.

Fish fossils found on mountain tops. There is no scientific reason to condluce the earth was not flooded and all life wiped out.

There's absolutely no scientific reason to conclude that groups of organisms were spontaneously and separately created less than 10,000 years ago,

After its kind, which and be proved by observation and by being repeated and can't be falsified, proves groups of organism were created separately. Genetics prove one life form cannot evolve into a different species. There is absolutely no scientific reason to conclude the first life form created itself out of lifeless elements.

There's absolutely no scientific reason to conclude that humans are completely unrelated to any other organism.

There is absolutely no scientific reason to conclude humans are related to any other organism except homo sapian. DNA separates ever living life form, animal, plans and HUMANS. DNA can not only separated each category, it will tell the dogs from the cats. It certainly will not link a dog-like land animal to sea Creature and genetics will keep a nose from becoming a blowhole.

]But if you throw in the Bible and a literal interpretive framework, now you have reasons to reach those conclusions.....entirely religious reasons however.

The Bible is not a science book. Keep the discussion on science, not on religion.

 

[omega2xx]

Again, this thread is about creationists stating and supporting their claims that creation happened the way Genesis say it did, and that God did it.

Nothing that I might say will be relevant, because I am not a creationist, so the thread is not addressed to me.

Do you have evidences that God is real or the 6-day creation happened?

Do you have any evidence God is not real can could not create the universe in 6 days? Do you have any evidence how matter, energy and life could be created without a source?

Or that donkey and serpent can talk in human languages?

Do you have any evidence an omnipotent God can not cause animals to talk? BTW "serpent" is a metaphor for Satan.

Or perhaps you have evidences for the Flood?

Do you have any evidence the flood did not happen as described? Do you know how much water was available to cause such a flood?

Or do you evidences to support dinosaurs lived around the same time as man?

Do you have any evidence they did not live at the same time? The description of leviathan is close to a description of a dino.

Or that people speaking only one language, but then speaking all different languages (Tower of Babel) in an instant or on the same day?

Do youhave any evidence that tdher was not one language at one time and many languages were not changed in an instant?

Or perhaps, you can provide evidences that Egypt and Uruk (Erech) didn't exist before the Flood?

Irrelevant. The Bible does not address when they the became a nation.

Mt 19:26b - ...With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

 

[omega2xx]

To be a Christian is to always be a witness. Everything you do and say is a testimony of your faith.

Every things you say about evolution is a testimony of your faith.


Seeing how you discuss ToE and the topic of creationism in this thread, there's no need to discuss your religion. You already have shown what kind of person you are and what you stand for.[/QUOTE]

While I might mention "after their kind" occasionally, I do not use the Bible to reject evolution. After their kind is scientifically proved 1000's of times every day and it can't be falsified. Other than that I do not use the Bible in my objection to evolution. Evolution can easily be shown false by accepted and proven science, especially genetics. Also 2 basic default posions of evolution, mutation and natural selection cannot be shown to be a mechanism for a change of species. One rthing you need to consider is that time will never change the laws of genetics, no matter how much you want.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Nope. Didn't understand that word salad. English please.

Oh, so you have comprehension problems. My bad, sorry. Hopefully the airbags will function next time.

 

[metis]

That simple is not true. The Protestant canon was established by Protestant scholars.

Luther took the Catholic canon and only translated it into German, and no Protestant denomination developed a separate canon. Luther had toyed with the idea of dropping some of the books in the Catholic canon but eventually decided against it.

As I previously mentioned, he included the Apocrypha at first, placing it between the OT and the NT. All the books in Luther's original canon are exactly the same as found in the Catholic canon. What he did do however was to go back to the Greek Septuagint versus just relying on the Catholic translation.

Here: Luther Bible - Wikipedia

Please do the homework as you have literally no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Ouroboros]

Every things you say about evolution is a testimony of your faith.

The good thing though is that I'm not going to be judged by God. I don't have God's command on me to be a witness, as you, as I assume, believe that you do. Jesus told you to be a good witness, it's a command from your God, or perhaps you deep down don't believe it? I don't have a command like that. I don't have to convert anyone or prove anything to a higher being, but you do. You stand witness for God. You are a living testimony (as they say in Christian circles) of God's power, will, love, and salvation. But apparently, that doesn't apply to you?

Seeing how you discuss ToE and the topic of creationism in this thread, there's no need to discuss your religion. You already have shown what kind of person you are and what you stand for.

Since I haven't discussed ToE or creationism in this thread (I have only discussed definitions and argued that you're sidetracking the topic), I see it as a stupid response from you, and since I don't have a religion or have a gospel to be a witness about, it makes even less sense. But I'm sure it makes all sense in your head.

While I might mention "after their kind" occasionally, I do not use the Bible to reject evolution. After their kind is scientifically proved 1000's of times every day and it can't be falsified. Other than that I do not use the Bible in my objection to evolution. Evolution can easily be shown false by accepted and proven science, especially genetics. Also 2 basic default posions of evolution, mutation and natural selection cannot be shown to be a mechanism for a change of species. One rthing you need to consider is that time will never change the laws of genetics, no matter how much you want.

What you fail to see that St Paul told you to avoid endless and stupid discussions. Heed his warning.

 

[rusra02]

So things DON'T have to have a cause. Thanks for agreeing.

The true God is unique. Every thing and every one except Jehovah had a beginning, IMO.

 

[omega2xx]

The good thing though is that I'm not going to be judged by God. I don't have God's command on me to be a witness, as you, as I assume, believe that you do. Jesus told you to be a good witness, it's a command from your God, or perhaps you deep down don't believe it? I don't have a command like that. I don't have to convert anyone or prove anything to a higher being, but you do. You stand witness for God. You are a living testimony (as they say in Christian circles) of God's power, will, love, and salvation. But apparently, that doesn't apply to you?

I am not going to be judged by God (Jn 3:18)I do not have a command from God to convert anyone. In fact I do not have the ability to convert anyone. I am in sales, not management.

Since I haven't discussed ToE or creationism in this thread (I have only discussed definitions and argued that you're sidetracking the topic), I see it as a stupid response from you, and since I don't have a religion or have a gospel to be a witness about, it makes even less sense. But I'm sure it makes all sense in your head.

It only has to make sense to me as what you believe by faith alone only has to make sense to you.

What you fail to see that St Paul told you to avoid endless and stupid discussions. Heed his warning.

What you call stupid does not mean it is stupid. Let me assure you this discussion is not endless. I will continue for a while because some who are sitting on the fence, might see the truth and jump off on the right side, Most of what I post is not for you or for Metis.

 

[omega2xx]

Luther took the Catholic canon and only translated it into German, and no Protestant denomination developed a separate canon. Luther had toyed with the idea of dropping some of the books in the Catholic canon but eventually decided against it.

As I previously mentioned, he included the Apocrypha at first, placing it between the OT and the NT. All the books in Luther's original canon are exactly the same as found in the Catholic canon. What he did do however was to go back to the Greek Septuagint versus just relying on the Catholic translation.

Here: Luther Bible - Wikipedia

Please do the homework as you have literally no clue what you are talking about.

All you need to know is that Luther was not in charge of determining the canon. What he did played on part in establishing the Protestant canon. He did wan to not include he book of James, but those in charge overruled him.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am not going to be judged by God (Jn 3:18)I do not have a command from God to convert anyone. In fact I do not have the ability to convert anyone. I am in sales, not management.

So Jesus telling the disciples to go and tell was only to them? Our church saw it as a command to all Christians and that we all were witnesses.

It only has to make sense to me as what you believe by faith alone only has to make sense to you.

Ok.

What you call stupid does not mean it is stupid. Let me assure you this discussion is not endless. I will continue for a while because some who are sitting on the fence, might see the truth and jump off on the right side, Most of what I post is not for you or for Metis.

Fair enough. Just know that inability to understand logic and definitions and misrepresenting people will not impress even those who are on the fence.

 

[omega2xx]

So Jesus telling the disciples to go and tell was only to them?

Where did He say that?

Our church saw it as a command to all Christians and that we all were witnesses.

All Christians are witnesses(Acts 1:8). We make better witnesses by what we do, than by what we say. Non-Christians can't understand what we say, but they can understand what we do, if it exhibiting what Jesus taught us to do and not do.

Fair enough. Just know that inability to understand logic and definitions and misrepresenting people will not impress even those who are on the fence.

Who died and made you the final authority on what is logical and what is misrepresenting something. You have enough to be concerned about your witness to be concerned about mine. I am responsible to God, not to you.