Discourse on Creation and Evolution

[Jayhawker Soule]

From some of the post it is readily apparent that some are throwing out opinions and not going to my links and reading the facts. But really 2 Timothy 3.16 ...

Get over yourself. As for the rest ...

Poor II Timothy. Rarely has so little been called upon to do so much. Dare to question even the poorest of Biblical pericopes, and the inerrantist raises her eyes to the heavens and intones that magical mantra from 2 Timothy, i.e.:

• 3.14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
• 3.15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
• 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
• 3.17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

There it is, right there in black and white for all to see: All Scripture is inspired! How wonderfully clear, not to mention convenient. Unfortunately ...

Circulus in Demonstrando

Defending scripture with scripture assumes the premise in question. This is clearly a circular argument and therefore, as arguments go, entirely worthless.

What Scripture is Implied?

According to tradition, 2 Timothy was written by Paul. This would imply that it was written in the mid 60s. The text, however, refers to the "Holy Scriptures" as something known "from childhood", i.e., decades earlier. Only the most conservative Christian apologist would suggest that this referred to any New Testament document.

How Do You Spell Pseudepigraphy?

As noted in the New American Bible: 1 Timothy - Introduction ...

"From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters."​

While "most scholars" is certainly not the same as "all scholars", it is worth keeping in mind a a large number of highly trained Biblical Scholars do not believe that 2 Timothy is Pauline.

So, all your pathetic posturing is nothing more than circular reasoning, using a quote that had nothing to do with New Testament scripture, taken from a letter whose author is, according to "most scholars", entirely unknown. The verse that is called upon to do so much turns out to be worth so little, and the arrogance that relies on it turns out to be worth even less.

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

As I said before,

The Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.



To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Quran, and the Book of Wiccim.

There will always be those who wish to criticize the Bible on one concept or another such as one saying,

While "most scholars" is certainly not the same as "all scholars", it is worth keeping in mind a a large number of highly trained Biblical Scholars do not believe that 2 Timothy is Pauline.

Many so called scholars continue to put forth contrarian opinions. Why? This is a quick, though intellectually dishonest way, of getting notoriety. But this does NOT change reality.



Now let’s see what the renown Smith’s Bible Dictionary says on 1 and 2 Timothy and who was the faithful person under divine inspiration who wrote them.

The Epistles to Timothy and Titus are called the Pastoral Epistles, because they are principally devoted to directions about the work of the pastor of a church. The First Epistle was probably written from Macedonia, A.D. 65, in the interval between St. Paul’s first and second imprisonments at Rome. The absence of any local reference but that in (

1 Timothy 1:3) suggests Macedonia or some neighboring district. In some MSS. and versions Laodicea is named in the inscription as the place from which it was sent. The Second Epistle appears to have been written A.D. 67 or 68, and in all probability at Rome. The following are the characteristic features of these epistles:-- (1) .... . (2 Timothy 4:13) (4) The conspicuous position of the "faithful sayings" as taking the place occupied in other epistles by the Old Testament Scriptures. The way in which these are cited as authoritative, the variety of subjects which they cover, suggests the thought that in them we have specimens of the prophecies of the apostolic Church which had most impressed themselves on the mind of the apostle and of the disciples generally. (1 Corinthians 14:1) ... shows how deep a reverence he was likely to feel for spiritual utterances. In (1 Timothy 4:1) we have a distinct reference to them. (5) The tendency of the apostle’s mind to dwell more on the universality of the redemptive work of Christ, (1 Timothy 2:3-6; 4:10) and his strong desire that all the teaching of his disciples should be "sound." (6) The importance attached by him to the practical details of administration. The gathered experience of a long life had taught him that the life and well being of the Church required these for its safeguards. (7) The recurrence of doxologies, (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15,16; 2 Timothy 4:18) as from one living perpetually in the presence of God, to whom the language of adoration was as his natural speech.[source – Smith’s Bible Dictionary, by Dr. William Smith]

.

Also, let’s consider another renown reference work on this subject,

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

Timothy, First and Second, Theology of

The two epistles Paul wrote to Timothy are not usually associated with theology as much as they are with church organization and practice. However, it is significant to notice how many doctrines of the Christian faith are supported by key verses from these epistles. Beginning with bibliology, the crucial passage for the inspiration of all of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. It is stated here that all Scripture is inspired or "God-breathed" and for that reason is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." These verses indicate that anything that goes under the name of "scripture" is God-breathed out, and God-originated, and hence is his Word. As such, it is reliable and trustworthy and must be inerrant. For this reason Paul also writes that we should work hard to present ourselves approved to God, so we do not have to be ashamed, correctly handling the Word as characterized by truthfulness (2 Tim 2:15). Paul also writes that the sacred writings of Scripture are able to give wisdom and to lead to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Tim 3:15). Consequently, the Scriptures for Paul were, as God's Word, the authoritative and inerrant foundation stone upon which all other Christian doctrines and ethics rest.[source - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology]

And another,

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

The Book of 1 Timothy Chapter 1

Paul an apostle - Familiarity is to be set aside where the things of God are concerned. According to the commandment of God - The authoritative appointment of God the Father. Our Saviour - So styled in many other places likewise, as being the grand orderer of the whole scheme of our salvation. And Christ our hope - That is, the author, object, and ground, of all our hope.[source – John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible]

As shown by the above, John Wesley did NOT question Paul as the author of 1 Timothy.



But, enough, we have drifted from what this thread is all about, which is God (YHWH) as the Creator and the Wonderful Things He Has Provided us. Let’s start discussing up-building things in this regard.



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now let’s see what the renown Smith’s Bible Dictionary says ...

Renown, no less.

As shown by the above, John Wesley did NOT question Paul as the author of 1 Timothy.

So there!

 

[Scott1]

Oy vey iris.... I was not going to comment on this until you brought the Canons of the Catholic Church into this...... and I must say that it pains me to bring this to your attention..... religious zealots and Bible fundamentalists like yourself are the BEST evangelization tools the Catholic Church has..... but, I feel I should comment anyway.

Hi Master VigilYou are in error. My previous post was not opinion, but a summarization of what is in the Bible and recorded in renown history books and encyclopedias.
Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia under Canon of the Old Testament
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

and,

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION - (DEI VERBUM)
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v5.html

Did you actually read any of these "renown history books"??????

You have made yourself look foolish by quoting something that reveals the exact OPPOSTITE of what your position is. My goodness, you could not have read this..... let me share a little bit in the hope you'll read it now:

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the Word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the Word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this Word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence [6].


Did you mean to quote a document that invalidates everything you have ever posted?:biglaugh:

Thanks for being here iris..... keep up the good work.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

and I must say that it pains me to bring this to your attention..... religious zealots and Bible fundamentalists like yourself are the BEST evangelization tools the Catholic Church has.

Say it ain't so, Scott! I, for one, think the Church should put more stock in good, science appreciatin'' folk such as yourself.

 

[Master Vigil]

"some are throwing out opinions and not going to my links and reading the facts."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Please don't tell me you are thinking centuries old opinions are facts? Please??!!!?? None of your posts have fact, you are trying to prove the bible by using the bible. YOU CAN"T DO THAT!!!!! Circular arguments are not valid!!!!! I know you say that the bible was written by 40 some authors who were divinely inspired by god. That is fine, but there is no PROOF!!!! So stop sticking it in there as FACT!!!!

 

[Scott1]

Say it ain't so, Scott! I, for one, think the Church should put more stock in good, science appreciatin'' folk such as yourself.

Hehe.... thanks my friend..... but the truth is that these fundamentalists (as this thread has shown) can do more to bring those who already have faith in Christ but not His Church into full communion with the Catholic Church than everything else combined.

 

[iris89]

Hi SOGFPP



Your statement,

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the Word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the Word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this Word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence [6].

Clearly overlooks the main part of what I was referring to which were the ancient reference works given under that subject in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Unfortunately within these scholarly Catholic works there are tares such as the one you highlighted above. This reminds me of a similar situation given in parable by Jsus (Yeshua) at Matthew 13:24-30, "Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field: 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? 28 And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn." (American Standard Version; ASV). That is a major problem with Catholic research articles, they sneak in false theology interspersed in with good research, NOT INTELLECTUALLY HONEST.



Also, another poster said,

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Please don't tell me you are thinking centuries old opinions are facts? Please??!!!?? None of your posts have fact, you are trying to prove the bible by using the bible. YOU CAN"T DO THAT!!!!! Circular arguments are not valid!!!!! I know you say that the bible was written by 40 some authors who were divinely inspired by god. That is fine, but there is no PROOF!!!! So stop sticking it in there as FACT!!!!

Clearly this poster is not cognizant of the fact that standards are promulgated not proven. In other words they are the final authority and the use of them is NOT circular reasoning. In fact I have written an entire research article on this fact, go to:



STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5076



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[michel]

Quote[To sum it all up (E-equals-MxC2) shows energy and matter can not be created or destroyed by any mechanism known to man and yet one or the other or both had to come in existence at sometime or nothing we now know including mankind itself would exist. Therefore, even if a Bible that tells who created all did not exist, the universe and all in it would clearly show the existence of a Creator.]
Hi Iris

That last paragraph could have been written by me, If I had got there first! - it epitomises the methodology of my thinking. Of course, you can go further with 'nothing can be created nor destroyed' in Religions - such as 'what ye sow ye shall reap'
It is too, one of the pointers (for me) as to the validity in the belief in reincarnation.
One last point ; I think I saw God made trees and plants for our enjoyment; do you KNOW that trees and plants are not sentient beings of a type?

 

[iris89]

Hi michel

I hope that you went on to read my other post on the wonderful things God (YHWH) has created for mankind. As you can clearly see, many posters have drifted far afield.

My point being, of course, that God (YHWH) brought all into existance and as the bible says at Psalms 90:2, "Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (American Standard Version; ASV), clearly showing he always existed.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Clearly this poster is not cognizant of the fact that standards are promulgated not proven. In other words they are the final authority and the use of them is NOT circular reasoning.

What a stunningly stupid statement. To promulgate is to formally declare/proclaim. To declare that the Bible is the standard of truth and, therefore, all Biblical statements are true is clearly a case of circular reasoning.

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

A standard by virtue of what it is is not circular reasoning. A standard is something for judging all else from.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Valjean]

Your reasoning continues to be circular, iris. You defend the Bible as a proper reference by reference to the Bible itself.

 

[anders]

Deut, Seyorni and SOGFPP to name a few, have done an admirable job to show some of the errors in iris' reasoning. I'll just challenge you once more, iris, with the question I've asked you several times: what proof is there that the Bible was written by 40 persons? Please tell us who they were, and when and where they lived. You will be world famous if you can tell us these things.

 

[iris89]

Hi Seyorni



My reasoning is in no way circular. It is quite obvious that you fail to comprehend what a standard is so let's check this out.



The One Look Dictionary defines a standard the way I am using it as,

a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. defines it as:

2a. An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion. b. An object that under specified conditions defines, represents, or records the magnitude of a unit

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary defines it as:

1 usual rather than special, especially when thought of as being correct or acceptable:
White is the standard colour for this model of refrigerator.
These are standard procedures for handling radioactive waste.
The metre is the standard unit for measuring length in the SI system.
MAINLY UK Your new TV comes with a two year guarantee as standard.

2 Language described as standard is the form of that language which is considered acceptable and correct by most educated users of it:
Most announcers on the BBC speak standard English.
In Standard American, 'gotten' is used as a past participle of 'get'.

3 [before noun] A standard book or writer is the one that is most commonly read for information on a particular subject:
Her book is still a standard text in archaeology, even though it was written more than twenty years ago.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:

4 : something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines it as:

2. That which is established by sovereign power as a rule or measure by which others are to be adjusted. Thus the Winchester bushel is the standard of measures in Great Britain, and is adopted in the United States as their standard. So of weights and of long measure.

3. That which is established as a rule or model, by the authority of public opinion, or by respectable opinions, or by custom or general consent; as writings which are admitted to be the standard of style and taste. Homers Iliad is the standard of heroic poetry. Demosthenes and Cicero are the standards of oratory. Of modern eloquence, we have an excellent standard in the speeches of lord Chatham. Addisons writings furnish a good standard of pure, chaste and elegant English stayle. It is not an easy thing to erect a standard of taste.

In other words, a standard by virtue of its nature can never be circular reasoning as it is “basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated” as shown above. And in the case of the Bible, it is a unique standard set by the highest sovereign power in the universe. God (YHWH) as a rule or measure by which all things are to be judged. Since he created all things, it is his absolute right to set the standard as he is responsible for the existence of all things in the universe.



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Anders



FIRST, No one has shown any errors in my reasoning as I only write well researched research reports and provide all necessary evidence, facts, and backup.



SECOND, You can go to any large city library and go to almost any encyclopedia and learn who wrote the Bible, also, there are Bible dictionaries that show who wrote what. Now go do the research and stop bothering me with foolishness.



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[linwood]

SECOND, You can go to any large city library and go to almost any encyclopedia and learn who wrote the Bible, also, there are Bible dictionaries that show who wrote what. Now go do the research and stop bothering me with foolishness.

I have a World Book through 1991
I have an American Heritage through 1979
Most of a set of Brittanicas
Numerous online encyclopedias.

Not one tells me who wrote the Bible.

Could you please support any of your assertions?

 

[iris89]

Hi Linwood

You appear to have the tools; now you need to learn how to use them. You can not simply look for writers of the Bible as that is too general of a subject. You have to do research by Bible book and who wrote it such as the book of Isaiah. You must learn to be a researcher and figure out under what topic the information you are seeking is located.

Your friend in Christ Iris89

 

[linwood]

Hi Linwood

You appear to have the tools; now you need to learn how to use them. You can not simply look for writers of the Bible as that is too general of a subject. You have to do research by Bible book and who wrote it such as the book of Isaiah. You must learn to be a researcher and figure out under what topic the information you are seeking is located.

Your friend in Christ Iris89

iris,


Tell me...who wrote the Tanach?

Just tell me if you have an idea of your own answer the question.

Who wrote the Tanach?

Simple enough hmm?

 

[iris89]

Hi Linwood

I care not who wrote the Tanach which is nothing but a takeoff and/or commentary on the Torah. If you wish to know, look it up in the reference books that you have.

Now let's get back to the subject of the thread and stop playing logomachy and who wrote what games. The answers to all of this should be in your reference books so make use of them. Do NOT expect myself or others to go do research on every none important item for you as that is just being lazy.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89