Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[RTB Discussion Group] Re: The LYING Nonsense of Kyle part two...

Expand Messages
  • darth_versive
    ... Hmm...interesting discussion. As a non-Christian, do you mind if I put in my two-cents worth? Perhaps it s not so much the text of the Bible itself that
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Wilson
      <jeffdwil@y...> wrote:
      >
      > --- Mark <krinks@v...> wrote:
      >
      > > *** The sin all began the same way that the
      > > teachings of
      > > HughRoss/RTB/OEC begin. It began with Eve getting
      > > convinced to ask
      > > herself "Did God really say" which gave the clear
      > > word of God anothe
      > > meaning, just as you do when you pervert the word of
      > > God in the same
      > > fashion and "in six days" becomes "in 'x' number of
      > > billions of
      > > years". It is the same thing. Perverting the word of
      > > God and
      > > inserting outside ideas into it, which changes the
      > > meaning of the
      > > text is where scriptural perversion always begins.
      >
      > Since it was not Eve that questioned God's words, but
      > the serpent... And since Eve's since was not
      > considered
      > the "original sin"... And since the commentaries
      > disagree with you... Does that mean your opinion then
      > is superior the Bible scholars? Again, by what basis
      > do you claim Eve's sin was in adding "do not touch of
      > it" to God's claims not to eat of the Tree when no one
      > else seems to indicate so (including the Bible
      > itself)? Please point me to scripture that supports
      > your view. How is it that everyone else is always
      > wrong that disagrees with you? Try not to change the
      > subject please.

      Hmm...interesting discussion. As a non-Christian, do you mind if I
      put in my two-cents worth?

      Perhaps it's not so much the text of the Bible itself that is at
      issue here as being infallible/beyond reproach/beyond question,
      etc. But instead, it's Mark's *interpretation* of the Bible that is
      the real issue here. Of course, to Mark, they would probably be
      considered to be one and the same.

      Many times, when I look over the history of theological arguments
      involving Scripture, I realize that the parties involved often
      cannot separate their own interpretations of the text from the
      actual text itself. Clues that this is occuring can be found in the
      use of such phrases as "Perverting the Word of God," and "clear and
      obvious meaning of the text," etc. That is, the sort of phrases
      that Mark uses above.

      It's like what happened during the time of Galileo, when the Pope
      and the Inquisition, etc. were of the firm view that the Copernican
      Theory (Heliocentrism) was in confict with the Bible. In fact, it
      was only in conflict with their *interpretation* of the Bible, but
      they just couldn't separate the two in their minds. So they
      condemned Galileo as a heretic, and have had to live that down for
      centuries.

      Like I said, I'm no Christian, but what would you guys call this
      sort of behavior? Making an idol out of their own hermeneutics or
      exegesis of the text? Pride? This isn't my field, so I'm not sure
      how to classify it.

      (My own point of view is that Truth can never contradict Truth, and
      that if good science conflicts with the Bible, one should first re-
      examine one's own interpretation of the Bible before one rushes to
      declare that the science is wrong, but that's just me.)

      DV
    • Kevin Nelson kg6grm
      Hi DV, All truth is God s truth. The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. The Bible also says that God cannot deceive, it is not in His
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi DV,

        All truth is God's truth.

        The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. The Bible also
        says that God cannot deceive, it is not in His nature to deceive.

        Therefore, there should never be any contradiction between the Bible and
        Science. Only complete harmony.

        Another preposition is that all valid data must be considered when
        interpreting other data. Biologists can't ignore the findings of
        astrophysics or mathematics. Christians can't interpret Genesis 1 without
        examining the 11+ other passages in the Bible that talk about God's
        creation. (Nor, for that matter, can they make any theological statement
        without considering all of the Bible.) Furthermore, theologians can't ignore
        the general revelation of God made evident in this universe, nor can
        scientists ignore the special revelation of God as contained in the Bible.

        If there is a contradiction, one of the following three possibilities exist:

        1) The interpretation of the scientifically obtained data is wrong.

        2) The interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

        3) The interpretation of both is wrong.

        Therefore, on these premises, naturalistic models, that have pushed God out
        of the picture, and the young-Earth creationist's models, all fail. Only the
        old-Earth creationist model, excluding those of the Intelligent Design
        folks, fits the Bible and all the scientific data.

        Never mind Mark. I admire him for his zeal, but his understanding of
        theological issues is clouded by an overly-simplistic view of the Bible.

        Kevin


        -----Original Message-----
        From: darth_versive [mailto:darth_versive@...]
        Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:53 AM
        To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: The LYING Nonsense of Kyle part
        two...




        --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Wilson
        <jeffdwil@y...> wrote:
        >
        > --- Mark <krinks@v...> wrote:
        >
        > > *** The sin all began the same way that the
        > > teachings of
        > > HughRoss/RTB/OEC begin. It began with Eve getting
        > > convinced to ask
        > > herself "Did God really say" which gave the clear
        > > word of God anothe
        > > meaning, just as you do when you pervert the word of
        > > God in the same
        > > fashion and "in six days" becomes "in 'x' number of
        > > billions of
        > > years". It is the same thing. Perverting the word of
        > > God and
        > > inserting outside ideas into it, which changes the
        > > meaning of the
        > > text is where scriptural perversion always begins.
        >
        > Since it was not Eve that questioned God's words, but
        > the serpent... And since Eve's since was not
        > considered
        > the "original sin"... And since the commentaries
        > disagree with you... Does that mean your opinion then
        > is superior the Bible scholars? Again, by what basis
        > do you claim Eve's sin was in adding "do not touch of
        > it" to God's claims not to eat of the Tree when no one
        > else seems to indicate so (including the Bible
        > itself)? Please point me to scripture that supports
        > your view. How is it that everyone else is always
        > wrong that disagrees with you? Try not to change the
        > subject please.

        Hmm...interesting discussion. As a non-Christian, do you mind if I
        put in my two-cents worth?

        Perhaps it's not so much the text of the Bible itself that is at
        issue here as being infallible/beyond reproach/beyond question,
        etc. But instead, it's Mark's *interpretation* of the Bible that is
        the real issue here. Of course, to Mark, they would probably be
        considered to be one and the same.

        Many times, when I look over the history of theological arguments
        involving Scripture, I realize that the parties involved often
        cannot separate their own interpretations of the text from the
        actual text itself. Clues that this is occuring can be found in the
        use of such phrases as "Perverting the Word of God," and "clear and
        obvious meaning of the text," etc. That is, the sort of phrases
        that Mark uses above.

        It's like what happened during the time of Galileo, when the Pope
        and the Inquisition, etc. were of the firm view that the Copernican
        Theory (Heliocentrism) was in confict with the Bible. In fact, it
        was only in conflict with their *interpretation* of the Bible, but
        they just couldn't separate the two in their minds. So they
        condemned Galileo as a heretic, and have had to live that down for
        centuries.

        Like I said, I'm no Christian, but what would you guys call this
        sort of behavior? Making an idol out of their own hermeneutics or
        exegesis of the text? Pride? This isn't my field, so I'm not sure
        how to classify it.

        (My own point of view is that Truth can never contradict Truth, and
        that if good science conflicts with the Bible, one should first re-
        examine one's own interpretation of the Bible before one rushes to
        declare that the science is wrong, but that's just me.)

        DV






        Read it for yourself - "Refuting Compromise" (See it for yourself why the
        RTB staff will not comment on Dr. Sarfati's scientific and logical arguments
        and Biblical critique of the teachings of Dr. Ross and his devoted
        followers.)
        GO TO: http://www.answersingenesis.org

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Mark
        ... Copernican ... *** Of course as with the Big Bang and billions of years, this idea did NOT find its origin on the pages of scripture but came from men
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > It's like what happened during the time of Galileo, when the Pope
          > and the Inquisition, etc. were of the firm view that the
          Copernican
          > Theory (Heliocentrism) was in confict with the Bible. In fact, it
          > was only in conflict with their *interpretation* of the Bible, but
          > they just couldn't separate the two in their minds. So they
          > condemned Galileo as a heretic, and have had to live that down for
          > centuries.


          *** Of course as with the 'Big Bang' and billions of years, this
          idea did NOT find its origin on the pages of scripture but came from
          men such as Hugh Ross/RTB who thought that they know best what God
          meant to say (versus allowing God to tell them what he said). You
          should brush up a bit on the history of the origins of the arguments
          involved.

          Matter of fact look at the archives in here from Dr Faulkner. You
          are not the first to make this argument. He has answered this charge
          quite a few times now.

          The fact is that the very argument proves the folly of
          HughRoss/RTB/OEC. They repeat the very same mistakes as the Church
          of Rome in the Galileo affair. Had the Church of Rome not held their
          own observations and ideas up to the same level of infallibility as
          scripture as HughRoss/RTB/OEC do today, they would never have been
          caught in error by Galileo.

          The true followers of Christ (not the RTB/OEC frauds) know that the
          word of God comes first and always has. They know that God does not
          play second fiddle to anyone's observations or outside ideas. God
          didn't have to wait 6000 years for someone to come along that was
          wise enough to figure it all out.





          >
          > Like I said, I'm no Christian, but what would you guys call this
          > sort of behavior? Making an idol out of their own hermeneutics or
          > exegesis of the text? Pride? This isn't my field, so I'm not
          sure
          > how to classify it.



          *** How about calling it allowing God to tell us what he said versus
          us trying to tell God what he meant?


          Mark
        • Mark
          ... Bible also ... Bible and ... *** This is where the LYING begins! God didn t say there was a Big Bang and the Earth is billions of years old! YOU DID! The
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Nelson kg6grm"
            <kg6grm@a...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi DV,
            >
            > All truth is God's truth.
            >
            > The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. The
            Bible also
            > says that God cannot deceive, it is not in His nature to deceive.
            >
            > Therefore, there should never be any contradiction between the
            Bible and
            > Science. Only complete harmony.


            *** This is where the LYING begins! God didn't say there was a Big
            Bang and the Earth is billions of years old! YOU DID! The Christian
            faith from the very beginning rebuked this line of thinking as
            heresy through the day of Wesley. Do I have to quote them again?
            Your ideas are as old as pagan Greek Philosophy and Hinduism.




            >
            > Another preposition is that all valid data must be considered when
            > interpreting other data. Biologists can't ignore the findings of
            > astrophysics or mathematics. Christians can't interpret Genesis 1
            without
            > examining the 11+ other passages in the Bible that talk about God's
            > creation. (Nor, for that matter, can they make any theological
            statement
            > without considering all of the Bible.) Furthermore, theologians
            can't ignore
            > the general revelation of God made evident in this universe, nor
            can
            > scientists ignore the special revelation of God as contained in
            the Bible.


            *** Again, you add ignorant and prideful on dishonesty. God never
            said the Earth was billions of years old and there was a 'Big Bang,
            YOU DID! Are you a Mormons that has eternally progressed into
            godhood? It is ONLY THEN that you can make an observation that means
            anything.





            > Never mind Mark. I admire him for his zeal, but his understanding
            of
            > theological issues is clouded by an overly-simplistic view of the
            Bible.
            >
            > Kevin



            *** It is funny that taking God at his word over the likes of you is
            somehow 'simplistic'. Is there any wonder why I say those that
            accept the teachings of HughRoss/RTB/OEC are NOT my brothers in
            Christ but are the savage wolves scripture spoke of often?


            Mark
          • Kevin Nelson kg6grm
            Gee, you seem to read a lot between the lines. Get out of the occult! Kevin ... From: Mark [mailto:krinks@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 9:32 PM
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Gee, you seem to read a lot between the lines. Get out of the occult!

              Kevin

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Mark [mailto:krinks@...]
              Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 9:32 PM
              To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: All is Kevin's Nonsense!




              --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Nelson kg6grm"
              <kg6grm@a...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi DV,
              >
              > All truth is God's truth.
              >
              > The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. The
              Bible also
              > says that God cannot deceive, it is not in His nature to deceive.
              >
              > Therefore, there should never be any contradiction between the
              Bible and
              > Science. Only complete harmony.


              *** This is where the LYING begins! God didn't say there was a Big
              Bang and the Earth is billions of years old! YOU DID! The Christian
              faith from the very beginning rebuked this line of thinking as
              heresy through the day of Wesley. Do I have to quote them again?
              Your ideas are as old as pagan Greek Philosophy and Hinduism.




              >
              > Another preposition is that all valid data must be considered when
              > interpreting other data. Biologists can't ignore the findings of
              > astrophysics or mathematics. Christians can't interpret Genesis 1
              without
              > examining the 11+ other passages in the Bible that talk about God's
              > creation. (Nor, for that matter, can they make any theological
              statement
              > without considering all of the Bible.) Furthermore, theologians
              can't ignore
              > the general revelation of God made evident in this universe, nor
              can
              > scientists ignore the special revelation of God as contained in
              the Bible.


              *** Again, you add ignorant and prideful on dishonesty. God never
              said the Earth was billions of years old and there was a 'Big Bang,
              YOU DID! Are you a Mormons that has eternally progressed into
              godhood? It is ONLY THEN that you can make an observation that means
              anything.





              > Never mind Mark. I admire him for his zeal, but his understanding
              of
              > theological issues is clouded by an overly-simplistic view of the
              Bible.
              >
              > Kevin



              *** It is funny that taking God at his word over the likes of you is
              somehow 'simplistic'. Is there any wonder why I say those that
              accept the teachings of HughRoss/RTB/OEC are NOT my brothers in
              Christ but are the savage wolves scripture spoke of often?


              Mark







              Read it for yourself - "Refuting Compromise" (See it for yourself why the
              RTB staff will not comment on Dr. Sarfati's scientific and logical arguments
              and Biblical critique of the teachings of Dr. Ross and his devoted
              followers.)
              GO TO: http://www.answersingenesis.org

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • darth_versive
              ... Pope ... it ... but ... for ... from ... arguments ... I have a rather different view of it. I see the Medieval RCC s exegesis of the Bible, leading to
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <krinks@v...>
                wrote:
                >
                > > It's like what happened during the time of Galileo, when the
                Pope
                > > and the Inquisition, etc. were of the firm view that the
                > Copernican
                > > Theory (Heliocentrism) was in confict with the Bible. In fact,
                it
                > > was only in conflict with their *interpretation* of the Bible,
                but
                > > they just couldn't separate the two in their minds. So they
                > > condemned Galileo as a heretic, and have had to live that down
                for
                > > centuries.
                >
                >
                > *** Of course as with the 'Big Bang' and billions of years, this
                > idea did NOT find its origin on the pages of scripture but came
                from
                > men such as Hugh Ross/RTB who thought that they know best what God
                > meant to say (versus allowing God to tell them what he said). You
                > should brush up a bit on the history of the origins of the
                arguments
                > involved.

                I have a rather different view of it. I see the Medieval RCC's
                exegesis of the Bible, leading to the support of Geocentrism, and
                the branding of Heliocentrism as heresy, as quite reasonable, given
                the Biblical text, and given the hermeneutics and the theology of
                the times. Reasonable but wrong, given the scientific facts about
                the solar system.

                > Matter of fact look at the archives in here from Dr Faulkner. You
                > are not the first to make this argument. He has answered this
                charge
                > quite a few times now.
                >
                > The fact is that the very argument proves the folly of
                > HughRoss/RTB/OEC. They repeat the very same mistakes as the Church
                > of Rome in the Galileo affair. Had the Church of Rome not held
                their
                > own observations and ideas up to the same level of infallibility
                as
                > scripture as HughRoss/RTB/OEC do today, they would never have been
                > caught in error by Galileo.

                That's interesting. I myself see the mistakes committed by the RCC
                in the Galileo affair to be quite similar to those being committed
                nowadays by many in the evangelical camp, with respect to biology,
                geology, astronomy, etc. I guess how you see it depends on your
                general philosophical perspective.

                > The true followers of Christ (not the RTB/OEC frauds) know that
                the
                > word of God comes first and always has. They know that God does
                not
                > play second fiddle to anyone's observations or outside ideas. God
                > didn't have to wait 6000 years for someone to come along that was
                > wise enough to figure it all out.

                I'm not qualified to comment on who is, and who is not, a "true"
                follower of Christ. I'm a non-Christian myself. It's something I'd
                have to let Christians work out for themselves.

                > > Like I said, I'm no Christian, but what would you guys call this
                > > sort of behavior? Making an idol out of their own hermeneutics
                or
                > > exegesis of the text? Pride? This isn't my field, so I'm not
                > sure
                > > how to classify it.
                >
                >
                >
                > *** How about calling it allowing God to tell us what he said
                versus
                > us trying to tell God what he meant?

                If that's what you want to call it, that's up to you. From my
                perspective, I just see different individuals from different sects
                or factions arguing over different interpretations of the same book,
                and nothing more. I'll leave it to you all to argue over which one
                of them is what "God really said" or what "God really meant." But
                it's still an interesting discussion, regardless of the ultimate
                outcome.

                DV
              • Mark
                ... *** It is only reasonable because you choose to be willingly ignorant of facts of the matter. Dr Faulkner has already proven that the belief came first
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 4, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I have a rather different view of it. I see the Medieval RCC's
                  > exegesis of the Bible, leading to the support of Geocentrism, and
                  > the branding of Heliocentrism as heresy, as quite reasonable,


                  *** It is only "reasonable" because you choose to be willingly
                  ignorant of facts of the matter. Dr Faulkner has already proven that
                  the belief came first and the proof-texts came later. This is what I
                  said having actually taken the time to study the issue.







                  > That's interesting. I myself see the mistakes committed by the
                  RCC
                  > in the Galileo affair to be quite similar to those being committed
                  > nowadays by many in the evangelical camp, with respect to biology,
                  > geology, astronomy, etc. I guess how you see it depends on your
                  > general philosophical perspective.


                  *** Like I said and you have proven you are willingly ignorant of
                  the facts at hand. That has already been established by your "view"
                  of thye origin of Geocentrism. It couldn't be more WRONG nor more
                  easily correctable.





                  Mark
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.