How is the Bible the Word of God?

[outhouse]

Does not exist?

Thanks for pointing out your severe desperation.

Could YOU possibly uses sources that did not require someone to ride a horse to a library when talking about modern science? is that to much to ask for?

from you links plural. Seems to be the source for this word across the board.

Origin

1855-1860

Talk about the epitome of quote mining

 

[1robin]

Makes as much sense as calling someone a gravitationist. OMG people actually believe in gravity!!!!

What next ??? please don't call me a round earther because we know the earth is round.

Evolutionist - RationalWiki

The term "evolutionist" is commonly used as an anti-science label by proponents of creationism and intelligent design. Sometimes the word changes to 'evilution' to indicate that belief in evolution is, in some creationist opinions, evil and of the devil. Both "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" refer to scientists and others who accept that the evidence-based theory of evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on the earth (otherwise known as over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields). Often, the term just gets thrown around to refer to anyone else they're disagreeing with at the time, such as atheists or libruls. To compound this st&^%$y some creationists even argue that "evolutionism" is a secular religion leading to sexual freedom and other supposed failings of present day society. [1] All in all, this represents mainly a bunch of...

What a person means when using a term was not the issue, and what you suggest is not what I meant. The issue was completely irrelevant but it was whether the term evolutionist is a term in common and approved language use and it is. Whether some group uses it in a derogatory way or not has nothing to do with the completely irrelevant but factual claim that evolutionists exist.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for pointing out your severe desperation.

Could YOU possibly uses sources that did not require someone to ride a horse to a library when talking about modern science? is that to much to ask for?

from you links plural. Seems to be the source for this word across the board.

Origin

1855-1860

Talk about the epitome of quote mining

When you can quote enough of my post that I can figure out what the heck your talking about then I will consider what the mode of transportation required to get to the library has to do with how much is learned while there.

Origin

1855-1860

I have no idea what the heck this is or means. This go around not one of your posts has made a relevant point whether right or wrong that I can find but is just more of the irrelevant and trivial bickering you left of posting. I will see if you can make a engaging point (or even addressing a meaningful topic) right or wrong tomorrow. If not I am going back to ignoring these posts. I think you have made about 6 irrelevant points so far. I requested and did not receive a single scrap of evidence for any for them being true, and 3 are in fact completely, 2 being false and pointless person attacks which I do not put up with for long.

You can start by posting anything I said that justifies claiming I stated the other poster was dumb or biased. Then give even bad reasons your other 4 claims to knowledge are true. You can skip the existence of evolutionists since denial is pathetic and the issue meaningless.

 

[Elusive Truth]

Who can ever limit "God" by language alone.

The word of God is... Love, Life and Freedom.

And I love your country and your language

I like this internet forum too.

I am an American also

 

[Elusive Truth]

The bible cannot be the word of God. There isn't enough science in the Bible to pass a grade 6 science test.

Scripture is the only authority...

And the word of God is on the tongue of the English language!

 

[outhouse]

I have no idea what the heck this is or means.

It means you quote mined an ancient definition to support your biased opinion no credible university in the whole world follows.

 

[outhouse]

pointless person attacks which I do not put up with for long.

Your the one who quote mined material from horse and wagon days circa 1855, to describe your unsupported position and definition no longer used outside of creationist circles.

I require honesty from people posting, it was not a personal attack on anything, just your choice of outdated sources to describe something that has changed from hypothesis to FACT since then.

the term evolutionist is a term in common and approved language use and it is.

It was common in the 1850's


As noted, today it is used ONLY by creationist following fanaticism and fundamentalism going against EVERY credible university in the whole world.

Today it is only used in off hand ways and has no place in modern society outside those who cling on to mythology and fight science.

Like this example below.

Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.


Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity.[1] It is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.

 

[outhouse]

but factual claim that evolutionists exist

So do gravitationist

So do round earthers


Context is key to "existence".

Neither of the above are abused, but creationist love to abuse this term to try and devalue evolution to a guess instead of the fact it is.

 

[JoStories]

Your the one who quote mined material from horse and wagon days circa 1855, to describe your unsupported position and definition no longer used outside of creationist circles.

I require honesty from people posting, it was not a personal attack on anything, just your choice of outdated sources to describe something that has changed from hypothesis to FACT since then.




It was common in the 1850's


As noted, today it is used ONLY by creationist following fanaticism and fundamentalism going against EVERY credible university in the whole world.

Today it is only used in off hand ways and has no place in modern society outside those who cling on to mythology and fight science.

Like this example below.

Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.


Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity.[1] It is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.

Most, if not all scholars of any discipline, from science to philosophy or theology, would never use a source older than 7 or so years ago. If I write an article, I am required to have my references no earlier than 2008. This includes both nursing and theological scholarly work. Any work based solely on something in that time frame would be rejected before even being considered.

 

[1robin]

It means you quote mined an ancient definition to support your biased opinion no credible university in the whole world follows.

Then it is wrong. I picked the first five dictionaries that appeared in a search.

 

[1robin]

Your the one who quote mined material from horse and wagon days circa 1855, to describe your unsupported position and definition no longer used outside of creationist circles.

Even if true which it most certainly is not the one thing has nothing to do with the other, I used standard encyclopedias still current today. None of them had anything to do with creationism or that definition you coughed up from rationalwiki. I used Merriam Webster, Oxford, etc...

I require honesty from people posting, it was not a personal attack on anything, just your choice of outdated sources to describe something that has changed from hypothesis to FACT since then.

You stating I suggested another poster was dumb and biased is a personal attach in the form of a lie. Which is why after 3 request you will not post a single thing I said where I did what you claimed.

It was common in the 1850's

As well as today. Of course it originates in the 1850s what you must show is that it expired at some point. 90% of the worse you use originate much longer ago than that as if when they originate has anything to do with anything, not that the existence of the word it's self has anything to do with anything.

As noted, today it is used ONLY by creationist following fanaticism and fundamentalism going against EVERY credible university in the whole world.

Completely wrong, I hear biologists themselves refer to themselves as evolutionists, and it is still in current major dictionaries published 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2003 with the exact definition I gave for it.

Today it is only used in off hand ways and has no place in modern society outside those who cling on to mythology and fight science.

First of all the issue for no apparent reason was whether the term existed. It does, it was not how it is used by subgroups at certain times.

Like this example below.

Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.


Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity.[1] It is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.

I do not care about any one of these issues and neither of them contradicts anything I have said. I do not care how some group of people use the word, I don't even care if the words exists or not, however the word exists in modern dictionaries with an official definition, and is self applied by biologists. It is not relevant at all but what I said is exactly right.

 

[1robin]

So do gravitationist

So do round earthers

The your proving my case for me. You can think it is a stupid term, you can think it has been high jacked by the Christian underground, etc....... but as I said it exist and is a currently accepted word.

Context is key to "existence".

Neither of the above are abused, but creationist love to abuse this term to try and devalue evolution to a guess instead of the fact it is.

Go attack a creationist using the word that way, I didn't, and I have never heard it used that way. How many layers of irrelevance are you going to add on top of a thing that was irrelevant to begin with? You appear to desire argument, any argument. You have not backed up any claim I requested it for, you have not gone back to anything that is relevant and so I will give you one last shot to do so or I will put this quasi-debate on hold if you do not.

 

[1robin]

Most, if not all scholars of any discipline, from science to philosophy or theology, would never use a source older than 7 or so years ago. If I write an article, I am required to have my references no earlier than 2008. This includes both nursing and theological scholarly work. Any work based solely on something in that time frame would be rejected before even being considered.

We are not discussing nursing. We are discussing the existence of the word evolutionist. It is in major dictionaries published today. Not that etymology was the original issue but if so would definitely use sourcing documents. In fact history, theology, etymology, etc..... consider original and contemporary documents and sources the holy grail of material. Even in my field of mathematics the majority of what we were taught is from the 16th 17th and 18th century. Let me give you an example from your own field where the arrogant idea that no one in history is worth learning from ended in disaster.

In 1860 the civil war began, the best medical minds in the US organized surgical procedures. They were so arrogantly confident they knew what best to do they ignored germ theory recorded in the bible from 2000 plus years before their time. The did not wash their hands, used standing water, and did not even wash instruments between surgeries. Disease killed more men than bullets did and the doctors if they were not so arrogant as to ignore history could have taken simplistic precautions that Israelites living in tents knew and saved tens of thousand of lives that their arrogance cost. So nursing would be one of the few subjects where I would agree that the latest is generally the best but even then that arrogance comes at a steep price at times. Very few other subjects require what you described. In engineering we had to go back and dig up parts from the Saturn 5 out of space junk yards because we could not figure out how they solved certain issues, in history period documents are almost always the prime resource, in theology they always are, in mathematics you literally can do it without spending most of your time learning what they were doing hundreds of years ago, in theology I will give you another example. Modern archeology has claimed countless things never existed including entire cultures listed in the bible. We now have entire museums full of artifacts from cultures ancient documents said existed and modern science wrongly said did not. Every other subject (at least most) does value knowledge from the past.


But none of this has anything to do with a word in modern dictionaries.

 

[outhouse]

. It is in major dictionaries published today.

And I have show the source to be from the 1850's, just because some dictionaries have left the phrase in doesn't mean the word is used ion proper context.


The proper term today is evolutionary biologist.

They were so arrogantly confident they knew what best to do they ignored germ theory recorded in the bible from 2000 plus years before their time

This will be fun. Confusing mikvahs with germ theory


What exactly was there germ theory ???

taken simplistic precautions that Israelites living in tents knew

What exactly did who know?

 

[outhouse]

You stating I suggested another poster was dumb and biased is a personal attach in the form of a lie

Not true.

Go back and look, I posed a question. And I have never suggested you said another poster was dumb or biased.


You do understand literary details are import while debating, and you really need to pay attention.

 

[viole]

I don't get it. You mean my personal freewill? I think you have already asked this and I said it is choice or will and that no further explanation can be given for it. I am not attempting to be able to explain freewill though I can define it. I am claiming that determinism does nothing to explain things that the mystery of freewill perfectly explains. So I don't know exactly what your asking, don't think anyone on earth could answer whatever it is your asking, but whatever the explanation is determinism does not seem to be possible.

Well yes. Your freewill, my freewill... If determinism really breaks when intentional agents are involved, then I think we need to analyze whether that is plausible. This goes far beyond moral responsability. A defeater of determinism, by leaving open the future, has significant physical consequences, since determinism-breaking free will would be able to cause the motion of objects and bodies in a way that is not deducible, not even in principle, by prior physical conditions.

So, you seem to claim that your decisions, or will, is such that no further explanation can be given for it. Is that equivalent to saying that your will is such that no further CAUSE can be given for it? If not, and only if not, what is the cause of your will?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Go attack a creationist using the word that way

I did not attack any creationist. Because they are the ones that are trying to shove their unsupported position on the scientific community against facts and evidence, and all modern education and knowledge.

They have constantly possess questioned methodology, as they refuse proper methods of examining evidence, because they don't have any credible evidence.


In debates quote mining is all to common because they have no credible sources. Twisting evidence out of context by taking partial clips of the words they know so little about is part of the methodology required to debate something with no credible sources.

Like it or not evolution is a supported fact, and creation is not.

 

[outhouse]

....... but as I said it exist and is a currently accepted word

And you completely take it out of its 1850 context.

Why cant you use the term evolutionary biologist instead????????????

 

[JoStories]

We are not discussing nursing. We are discussing the existence of the word evolutionist. It is in major dictionaries published today. Not that etymology was the original issue but if so would definitely use sourcing documents. In fact history, theology, etymology, etc..... consider original and contemporary documents and sources the holy grail of material. Even in my field of mathematics the majority of what we were taught is from the 16th 17th and 18th century. Let me give you an example from your own field where the arrogant idea that no one in history is worth learning from ended in disaster.

In 1860 the civil war began, the best medical minds in the US organized surgical procedures. They were so arrogantly confident they knew what best to do they ignored germ theory recorded in the bible from 2000 plus years before their time. The did not wash their hands, used standing water, and did not even wash instruments between surgeries. Disease killed more men than bullets did and the doctors if they were not so arrogant as to ignore history could have taken simplistic precautions that Israelites living in tents knew and saved tens of thousand of lives that their arrogance cost. So nursing would be one of the few subjects where I would agree that the latest is generally the best but even then that arrogance comes at a steep price at times. Very few other subjects require what you described. In engineering we had to go back and dig up parts from the Saturn 5 out of space junk yards because we could not figure out how they solved certain issues, in history period documents are almost always the prime resource, in theology they always are, in mathematics you literally can do it without spending most of your time learning what they were doing hundreds of years ago, in theology I will give you another example. Modern archeology has claimed countless things never existed including entire cultures listed in the bible. We now have entire museums full of artifacts from cultures ancient documents said existed and modern science wrongly said did not. Every other subject (at least most) does value knowledge from the past.


But none of this has anything to do with a word in modern dictionaries.

And yet, with regard to theology, while most papers are discussing centuries old material, we use current understanding. You say period documents are always used and that is simply not the case. If we wish to discuss archeology, and the import of cultures, then why is it that biblical scholars, speaking here only of Christian scholars, why do they renounce any and all cultural import that does not support their collective views? I speak here of the overt similarities between Christianity and older faiths, such as Egyptian and the ankh and its similarity to your cross. For the story of Osiris and Horus. Or the stories recounted in the epic of Gilgamesh? Or catal huyuk? And btw, where it pertains to medical science and hygiene; ie: the washing of hands and sterilizing equipment, that largely is credited to nightingale and the Crimean war, among other nursing historical figures. The science of th evolutionists is mostly credited to Darwin and his findings on the Beagle. Interesting read, that book. Yes, most fields, including theology and nursing look at th input from history but only you insofar as to compare. For example, I am writing my dissertation on the commonalities of God across various religions and while it does draw heavily from history, it's focus is on the now and therefore my point is to bring it to the present, including much current research. As for the origin of the word, define it as you will be I will say that every dictionary there is is regularly updated with what is newest now. They would not use old English to define computerese.

 

[1robin]

And I have show the source to be from the 1850's, just because some dictionaries have left the phrase in doesn't mean the word is used ion proper context.

You have only shown what is true of every word in every dictionary. That it predates publication.

The proper term today is evolutionary biologist.

The proper term is what is found in the dictionary, what you refer to if true is only what is the most popular term.

This will be fun. Confusing mikvahs with germ theory


What exactly was there germ theory ???

This is another semantic off ramp. The point was that modern scientists killed tens of thousands by arrogantly not learning simplistic sanitary procedures practiced thousand of years before them. That was the context of the discussion.

What exactly did who know?

In numerous instances the Bible contains medical information that far predates man's actual discoveries of related principles in the field of medicine. The medical instructions given by Moses to the Israelites some 3500 years ago were not only far superior to the practices of contemporary cultures, they also exceeded medical standards practiced as recently as 100 years ago. Where did Moses get this advanced information? Following are some examples of the medical knowledge afforded the Israelites in biblical times:

Sanitary Practices

For centuries doctors denied the possibility that disease could be transmitted by invisible agents. However, in the late 19th century Louis Pasteur [a Christian as usual] demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Diseasethat most infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from outside the body. This new understanding of germs and their means of transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an enormous drop in the mortality rate. Yet these core principles of sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years earlier.

The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human or animal carcass. They were also instructed to wash any uncovered vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered during war were also to be purified through either fire or running water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human waste outside of camp, and to burn the waste of their animals (See Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12).

These sanitary practices without question saved countless lives in the Israelite camps by protecting them against infection caused by unseen germs. Meanwhile, their Egyptian peers were dying by the thousands due to "remedies" that almost always consisted of some amount of human or animal dung1. As mentioned earlier, the sound sanitary practices that we take for granted today only began to flourish about a 100 years ago.

Bacteria

Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. [Not just this guy many in the medical field did the same] He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy "can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing"2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)

Laws of Quarantine

In the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that "It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary."2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.

It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century, when medical advances finally demonstrated the importance of sanitation and isolation during plagues. The devastating black plague of the 14th century that claimed millions of lives was not broken until the church fathers in Vienna began encouraging the public to start following the guidelines as set forth in the Bible. The promising results in Vienna compelled other cities to follow suit, and the dreaded plague was finally eradicated3.

The First Antiseptic

Hyssop oil was charged by God to Moses to be used as a purifying agent. Hyssop oil has been shown to contain 50% antifungal and antibacterial agents (Numbers 19:18, Psalm 51:7).

Circumcision and Blood Clotting

For centuries scholars must have been perplexed by God's law of circumcision which required the procedure to be performed on the 8th day after birth (Gen 17:12, 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21). Medical researchers recently discovered that the two main blood clotting factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life, about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth. These blood clotting agents facilitate rapid healing and greatly reduce the chance of infection. You can verify with any Obstetrician that the 8th day of life is the ideal time for a circumcision, and that any circumcision done earlier requires an injection of Vitamin K supplement.

Dietary Guidelines

By the 1980s, all the health organizations of the United States had adopted low-fat, high fiber dietary guidelines. This was the culmination of numerous scientific studies that had demonstrated that diets high in vegetables, fruits, and grains reduced the risk of heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases. Secular physicians generally agree that these dietary guidelines that were producing longer life spans were first developed by religious movements founded in the 1800s, particularly by the Seventh-day Adventists. Where did the Seventh-day Adventists get their guidelines? From a meticulous and careful study of the Bible4.

1. [word in bracket are mine]
2. I thought that this post would be the one that I called it quits on but since you finally mentioned a topic with some relevance I will carry on for a bit, however if you start up with your "any site that states anything inconvenient" is biased claims that will end it. This same information can be found in ten thousand sources including the bible.
3. I only gave a couple of relevant examples, there are countless biblical commands defied today that have left a trail of human wreckage in their wake.