RE: [CreationTalk] The False Principle
From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] The False Principle
>>> Paul warned in Colossians 2:8 of several things that can
>>>take us prisoner (Greek sulagogeo). Watch out forcolor=navy>
>>>philosophy, empty deceit, the teaching of men and the
>>>rudimentary principles of the orderly system (stoicheia
>>>tou kosmou). Stoicheia are elementary principles thatcolor=navy>
>>>serve as a foundation for a structured way of thinking.
>>>A captive mind can only think in its prison. Over the
>>>centuries, many people were enslaved by their passions,
>>>their religions and their ways of thinking.color=navy>
>>>What about in our days?style='color:navy'>
>>As is typical you claim that the Bible says something without
>> actually quoting from the Bible, so I provided the quote for
>> you below. It needs to be noted that your tendency to claim
>> that the Bible says something with out actually quoting the
>> Bible is practice common among false teachers. This allows
>> you to substitute your own words for the word of God.
>> However this is a natural result of denying that God has given
>> us an authoritative copy of His word in English something you
>> and all other disciples of the 19th century heretics
>> Hort have in common.
>> Colossians 2:8 (KJB) Beware lest any man spoil you through
>> philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
>> the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
>> I find it interesting that you conveniently left off any
>> reference >> to the end of the verse which say “not after
>> Christ.” This is important because it shows how flaw in you
>> interpretation, so it’s no wander you ignored it even though
>> is it is plainly there even in Greek. This is actually a warning
>> against following after the philosophy and traditions of the
>> world instead of following Christ.
> Despite what the KJV says, the Greek text clearly talks about
>imprisonment - not spoiling. Sulagogleo was the act of leading
>away captives taken as prisoners of war. It is a present active
>participle. We can be continually lead as prisoners of war in
>every generation that is deceived by the traditions of men. A
>prisoner of war is part of the spoils of war, but this is not like
>spoiled apples. This is minds that are taken prisoner, unable to
> think outside the box, by four things that are not after Christ
The word spoil as used in the KJB here dose mean rotten or damaged like spoiled apples but spoil has more definitions than that.
The word “spoil” also according to Webster’s dictionary primarily means “To plunder; to strip by violence; to rob; with of; as, to spoil one of his goods or possessions.”
The Greek word “sulagogleo” primarily means “to carry off booty” as well as “to carry one off as a captive.”
As a result “spoil” is a proper translation of “sulagogleo” and the proper one for use here, so the KJB got it right.
> Philosophy - an attempt to build a natural science based on
>elementary assumptions. style='color:navy'>
That is not what Philosophy means because it is much broader covering elementary assumptions of all areas of intellectual pursuit. You are artfully limiting it to the natural sciences. The natural sciences pursued with an atheistic philosophy would fit this verse, it does not include natural sciences pursued with a Biblical philosophy.
> This began with the pagan Greeks. Science was advanced by
> the popes of Romewho switched their philosophy from the
> pagan Plato to the pagan Aristotle.
You ignore the fact that the philosophies of both the pagan Greeks and the Pope actually hindered the development of the natural sciences for over 1000 years. It was not until the natural sciences got out form under these philosophies that it began to thrive.
> Empty delusion - ideas in peoples minds that are not part of
>the visible reality of nature.
“Empty or vain deceit” is correct term ant the proper translation of the Greer. Deceit is more than delusion but dishonesty as well. So you are totally wrong here.
>Teaching of men - a tradition that is transmitted. The western
>traditions have their roots in four pagan cultures w:st="on"> Babylon ,
>Persia , w:st="on">Greece and Rome .
The proper translation is “tradition of men” not “teachings of men.” The Greek word “paradosis” has to with tradition and ritual and not teaching. The only connect is that tradition and ritual are taught to pass it on.
> The elementary principle of the orderly system. Stoicheion
>are the elementary assumptions upon which science was built.
What you are doing here is narrowing the scope of the verse, including narrowing the definitions of Greek words so as to use it as an attack on science, when the scope of verse is much broader.
Paul's warning against these four things is in the imperative. Watch
>out and that is an order. These things can take you captive and
>lead you away from the truth - instead of leading you to Christ
>in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
>( Col 2:3)
Only includes science perused by worldly assumptions rather than Biblical ones falls under this. Creation Science is science perused by way Biblical assumptions and helps lead men to the truth - and leading them to Christ
> Western science was founded upon elementary assumptions
>(stoicheia) first attempted by the pagan Greeks and latercolor=navy>
>modified by medieval friars.style='color:navy'>
You neglect the fact that modern science has moved beyond most of the elementary assumptions the Greeks and medieval friars. The problem to day is atheistic elementary assumptions not Greek and medieval ones.
>Since the Bible even predicts the very assumption upon whichcolor=navy>
>western science was contrived, He will certainly make foolish
>the wise of this age, as He has promised. He has prepared acolor=navy>
>universe in which He will ultimately vanquish science for His
Baseless claim please give chapter and verse.
>>> Peter warned of a particular idea that will exist in the
>>> last days. He predicted that mockers will come askingidea.
>>> where is the promise of His coming. They will claim
>>> that, since the fathers died (fell asleep), all things
>>> remain the same. He used a phrase “arche ktiseous”
>>> - that can mean a “first law” with respect to this
>>>No sensible person can reject the visible evidence that
>>> all things are changing. Mountains push, seas expand,
>>> the seasons change, plants spring out of the ground,
>>> babies are born and grow old. So what do thestyle='color:navy'>
>>>mockers mean - that all things remain the same?
>> this time you don’t even give a reference let alone actually
>> quoting from the Bible. It is no surprise that you do not
>> actually quote from 2 Peter 3:3-6 since every translation
>> over that last 2000 years totally disagrees with you so you
>> have to make up your own to make your false teaching look
>>So once again I will provide a quote from a real Bible
>> 2 Peter 3:3-6 (KJB)
>> 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last daysscoffers,
>> walking after their own lusts,God
>> 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the
>> fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the
>> beginning of the creation.
>> 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
>> the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water
>> and in the water:
>> 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
>> The Greek phrase “arche ktiseous” is used 4 times in the Greek
>> new testament and all four times it is translated “the beginning
>> of the creation” and NEVER NEVER NEVER “first law. Its first
>> two uses are
>> Mark 10:6 (KJB) But from the beginning of the creation God
>> made them male and female.
>>Mark 13:19 (KJB) For in those days shall be affliction, such
>>as was not from the beginning of the creation which God
>>created unto this time, neither shall be.
>>In both cases the context clearly indicates that the proper translation
>> is “the beginning of the creation” and 2 Peter 3:4 has asimilar context.
>>Further more Peter is not saying that the scoffers will be saying
>> remain the same” but that they will be saying “all thingscontinue as they
>> were from the beginning of the creation.” This is dealing with acontinence
>> of physical process and laws uninterrupted by miracles by God. Thefact
>> error of your “translation” is evident by what you havealready said “No
>> sensible person can reject the visible evidence that all things arechanging.
>>” Your “translation” is fallacious on the face of it.
>> I have in the past shown you that the KJV follows the traditional
>>Catholic exegesis in a number of place, especially with respect to
>>creation. I have even shown you that this phrase can mean firs law
>>and it is best to take it as first law in two of the texts. I will not
A claim that I also have totally refuted as being based one you own erroneous understanding of Hebrew and Greek. You repeatedly narrow the meaning of words choosing among several meanings those that fit you view point.
For example yes “arche ktiseous” can mean “first law” but in no case in the New Testament does the context demand or even imply it. In both Mark 10:6 and Mark 13:19 it would make no sense translated is as “first law” and in 2 Peter 3:3-6 the context is a better fit to “the beginning of the creation.”
You also ignore your own assumptions which include
1. That your understanding of ancient Hebrew and Greek is accurate and not based on uncorrected misunderstandings.
2. That your ability understanding of ancient Hebrew and Greek and properly translate and interet is superior to everyone else that has studied these languages over the last 2000 years.
3. That your understanding of the ancient Hebrew concept of time is accurate.
4. That ancient notion of time, space and matter are correct and modern concepts of time, space and matter are erroneous despite fact supporting the modern concepts of time, space and matter.
5. You have to assume that God is incapable of going beyond the understanding of the human writers.
The simple fact is that when I check the references you give, I never see what you see in those texts. Some times I can see how you get what you see in them but other times there is no hint of what you are saying is there. Thus you conclusion that the KJB follows the traditional Catholic exegesis presupposes that your translation of the ancient Hebrew and Greek correct and the KJB translators were wrong. However when I look at the Hebrew or Greek what I see agrees with the KJB and NOT you. The simple fact is that YOU are the one in error not the King James Bible.
>>> Western science was founded on the elementary
>>>assumption that matter is not changing itself with age.
>>>The medieval Catholics “solved” the problem about change
>>>that the Greeks were unable to solve. They used their concept
>>>of an unchanging God to speculate that what He created also
>>>has an unchanging being. That does not mean they rejected
>>>the visible evidence that everything is changing. style='font-weight:bold'>What they
>>>imagined was that what matter is, its intrinsic properties,
>>>its essence, does not change as it ages.
>>You are committing a logical fallacy here by equating not
>> accepting intrinsic change with saying that “all things remaincolor=navy face=Arial>2 Peter 3:3-6 and not just
>> the same” the two concepts are not the same or even close.
>> However this logical fallacy is a necessary for you to make
>> your changing earth idea work since it is your only way of
>> connecting all of modern science to
>> the atheistic corruption of it.style='color:navy'>
>How do we know this prophesy about the last days has comecolor=navy>
>to pass? The structure of scientific rationality, its circular way
>of defining undetectable things like time empirically, itscolor=navy>
>mathematics, its laws, its methods - most of them rely on this
There is nothing in modern science based on the notion that all thing remain the same. Change is seen as being a basic property of the Universe, just NOT as you personally demand it sould.
Furthermore your first law is totally and absolutely bogus. It is not a proper translation of the Greek nor does it have any bases in reality. It is nothing but a figment of you imagination into which you throw in any thing you disagree with like a black hole.
>In fact, scientific cosmic histories and geologies obfuscate the
>evidence in the very place Peter predicted they would. color=navy>
True but base on a denial of natural laws being disrupted by miracles and not a non-acceptance of your notion of intrinsic change.
> They ignore the visible evidence that the plural heavens ek - palai – they
>came out long ago. The visible history of how galaxies formed as the stars
>came out of formerly naked globs - only fits the literal creation text, and
>completely vanquishes all scientific theories about beginnings.
As stated before this only true of evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists. There are Young Earth Creationists (myself included) that have not problem with the visible history of how galaxies formed. We see that stars were formed by God as HE brought the material out of white hole (quasars) and so on, we just don’t see it exactly the way you personally do. Evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists don’t see it because of they are influenced by atheistic assumptions and nothing to do with you fake first law.
> They ignore the evidence for the twice inudated earth.
Once again this only true of evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists and they do so because of they are influenced by atheistic assumptions and nothing to do with you fake first law.
> By the way, part of this is the deliberate ignorance about that the
>continents only fit together on a tiny globe, exactly as one should
>expect from the literal text in the original languages.
We have been over this several times before the so called fit is mainly an illusion of computer graphics and when done in the real world on a globe it is far from a true fit. Not to mention the fact that they ingor the continental shelves which totally destroy the alleged fit. Furthermore there is no bases for a smaller Earth in the Bible except maybe from you own person erroneous interpretation of you own person erroneous translation. This has nothing do with you so called first law because it has not bases in reality.
>>> Since Peter warns of this idea, it evidently is a false
>>> Since western science was founded on this idea, then there
>>>is something seriously wrong with the foundations of science.
>> No he warns of complete uniformitarianism of physical law without
>> consideration of divinely caused miracles which yes in a falseprinciple.
>> This is why you have to illogically connected not accepting intrinsicmake this
>> change with saying that “all things remain the same.” You
>> illogical connection for only one purpose and that is to ma(Message over 64 KB, truncated)