Are these the false prophets God warned us about?

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Burrawang

complete nonsense typical of the many inaccurate accusations that abound on this website when anyone honestly states they put their unswerving trust in the Holy Bible far above the fallible conjectures of man.

If you are dogmatic for a literal interpretation, suit yourself. Not everyone has to be curious about nature. As I already stated

@rsewell

I really do not care if you go to church on a Saturday or Sunday, how you receive communion, or if you are old earth or young earth. Believe what you will. If you think that your doctrine conflicts with science, then avoid science and leave it in peace.

It is you who insists on fabricating an pseudoscientific alternate reality supporting a young earth. None of that extra YEC malarkey, such as accelerated nuclear decay, is in the Bible. Science is not a theological or religious endeavor.

@Burrawang

I have observed frequent unjustified attacks on this website against the honesty and integrity of kind, gentle Christian men and women and that alone is shameful.

The responses are to correct lies and misrepresentations.

[Terry_Sampson]

Jon, you’ve misattributed the “it doesn’t matter” comment — that was Roy, not me.

More importantly, you’re blurring two separate things in Barr’s quote: the intent of the ancient writers and the beliefs of modern scholars. Barr made it clear that the authors of Genesis meant their text as history, but he and nearly all Hebrew scholars did not believe those events literally happened.

So Barr’s testimony isn’t proof that Genesis is historical narrative in fact — only that it was written with that intent. That’s a crucial distinction.

I believe you may have had or be having a stroke. You’re very confused.

[St.Roymond]

@Burrawang

I know that when I defend the Holy Bible to be God’s inerrant Word to mankind,
that clearly tells us about the real historical events

Those are not the same – one can regard the Bible to be inerrant but not take Genesis 1 - 11 as history.

@Burrawang

each time I attempt to state as precisely as I can, what I honestly believe to be the Truth as revealed to me in the Holy Bible

Except you don’t state it as what it is, you state it as The Truth that everyone has to agree with, implying that those who disagree aren’t “Bible believing”.
I counter many of your posts because I am Bible-believing and what YEC does is show that it puts a modern worldview above the text, which indicates that they hold that worldview to have authority above the scriptures.

@Burrawang

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Romans 16:17-18

This does not apply because you are not presenting doctrine that came from the apostles, you are presenting human opinion that is based on a misunderstanding of scripture.

@Burrawang

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. John 15:18-19

If you feel you are hated here, well it has nothing to do with the above. You are countered not because you are “not of the world”, you are countered because YEC is of the world since it sets a human worldview above the inspired text.

[St.Roymond]

@Burrawang

The exclusion of anything to do with God from science by decree

Is actually a lie – science cannot do such a thing. Some ignorant scientists may, but that is a matter of judging things by what is most convenient to your view.

@Burrawang

so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;

the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story;

Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

Then you are ignorant, since that was not true when I was in grad school and has become less true since then.

@Burrawang

the person exposing the TRUTH is attacked, mocked and made fun of,

Not true – you are called out for your dishonesty. That is not an attack, it is in reality a call to repentance.

@Burrawang

they say, it doesn’t matter, we can just forget about it and continue believing what so obviously contradicts the faithful reading of the Holy Scriptures.

This is also false – and you know it. The reality that most here honor “a faithful reading of the Holy Scriptures” seems to evade you. I can only see three options: one, you are lying and know it; two, you are so brainwashed that you actually can’t see what is in front of you; three, you for some reason aren’t capable of seeing what is in front of you.

@Burrawang

that alone is shameful

Shameful is the way you insult everyone who doesn’t agree with you by claiming that your little branch of the church is the only one that believes the Bible; also the way you defend liars.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Burrawang

@rsewell

From your statements, you are not open to any scientific analysis and evidence contrary to your dogma and sweeping grand statements, and reject the necessity of abiding by the rules of science.

Dear Ron,
complete nonsense typical of the many inaccurate accusations that abound on this website when anyone honestly states they put their unswerving trust in the Holy Bible far above the fallible conjectures of man.

I think it’s best not to comment one way or another on this remark. Instead, I shall simply cite some extracts from the conversation earlier in this thread and invite readers to draw their own conclusions about who is talking nonsense here.

@jammycakes

@Burrawang

I was following rules in laboratories I expect in many cases scores of years prior to many here in this debate. I understand procedural protocols and applied the precautionary principle when results were not as clear as expected. In any case I have considerable empirical science experience. The inane harping about rules and the unwarranted aspersions and attacks that claim dishonesty are not welcome, nor are they correct.

This is what bugs me most about young earthism.

The rules in question are the rules of honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. We can discuss what those rules are, how they should be applied to discussions about the age of the earth and evolution, and what they do or do not allow us to claim. But we should all agree, in principle at least, that they actually exist and that they need to be respected.

When somebody does not even acknowledge the need to stick to the rules in principle, dismissing them as “inane harping” and saying that they are “not welcome,” the only thing I can conclude is that they are fully aware that they are not telling the truth. And in such cases, pointing out their dishonesty is not an “unwaranted aspersion” or an “attack”; it is a statement of fact.

Sadly this is far from the only example of this I’ve seen. I’ve seen it repeatedly by young earthists who accuse me of taking the Bible’s demands for accurate and honest measurement out of context by applying them to science.

Oh, and it’s not sufficient to just claim to have experience of the rules. You need to demonstrate a willingness and ability to stick to them. People who do not have that experience can be excused on the grounds of ignorance when they get things wrong or fail to understand or apply the rules correctly. People who do, do not have the luxury of that excuse.

@Burrawang

@jammycakes

When somebody does not even acknowledge the need to stick to the rules in principle, dismissing them as “inane harping” and saying that they are “not welcome,” the only thing I can conclude is that they are fully aware that they are not telling the truth. And in such cases, pointing out their dishonesty is not an “unwaranted aspersion” or an “attack”; it is a statement of fact.

Dear James,
unfortunately, as it does appear you’re demonstrably unwilling to honestly remark on what I stated about being familiar with ‘rules’, and as a consequence of that, twist and egregiously misrepresent what was actually written to suit your belief, I don’t see any good reason to trust anything else you write at anytime as trustworthy or reliable either.

If you care to read what I wrote, I was referring to the ‘inane’ harping about rules that you insert into discussions at every opportunity.

Your demonstrably false words:

@jammycakes

When somebody does not even acknowledge the need to stick to the rules in principle, dismissing them as “inane harping” and saying that they are “not welcome,” the only thing I can conclude is that they are fully aware that they are not telling the truth.

I think it’s time to expose this dishonesty for what it is.
This is as good an example as any of how ‘jammycakes’ loves to twist around what someone sincerely and honestly writes, I can only presume to make them appear ignorant and dishonest.

Anyone here can read what I wrote and decide for themselves.

I did not say that rules are ‘inane harping’, nor did I say that rules are ‘not welcome’. I was talking about your incessant ‘inane harping’ that belies the truth that rigorously following the rules and protocols is a given, always, so that the experiment can be repeated and result data collated onto a spreadsheet to determine the mean.
As I said, I have extensive experience in laboratory protocols and procedures, “I was following rules in laboratories I expect in many cases scores of years prior to many here in this debate.”

Being misrepresented here and claimed to be consciously not telling the truth on what claims to be a Christian website, is not a good look by any stretch…

God Bless,
jon

@jammycakes

@Burrawang

I did not say that rules are ‘inane harping’, nor did I say that rules are ‘not welcome’. I was talking about your incessant ‘inane harping’ that belies the truth that rigorously following the rules and protocols is a given, always, so that the experiment can be repeated and result data collated onto a spreadsheet to determine the mean.

They are one and the same thing, Jon.

Yes you acknowledged that the rules exist. Yes, you said that you are familiar and experienced with them. Maybe you didn’t describe the rules themselves as “inane harping” and “not welcome.” But you did describe our insistence that you stick to the rules as “inane harping” and “not welcome.” And that was precisely what I was referring to.

@Burrawang

As I said, I have extensive experience in laboratory protocols and procedures, “I was following rules in laboratories I expect in many cases scores of years prior to many here in this debate.”

And I did acknowledge that. I specifically addressed it. I pointed out that it is not sufficient to point to your extensive experience in laboratory protocols and procedures; your claims and assertions need to meet a standard that is consistent with your extensive experience in laboratory protocols and procedures. Because if your arguments fall far below that standard then that will be known and intentional dishonesty, and there is nothing dishonest whatsoever about me—or anyone else for that matter—pointing that out.

I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but that’s the rules. As I said, if you don’t want to be told you’re being dishonest, then stick to the rules.

[Argon]

@Burrawang

so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

That’s probably worth researching on your own.
How about John H Walton, emeritus Wheaton College
Or Gordon Wenham, or Rabbi Moses Maimonides (more commonly, Maimonides) from the latter half of the 1100s, AD?

I included Maimonides because he was one of the preeminient Jewish philosophers and scholars of that era.

I just pulled these up on my phone while waiting for a pizza delivery. I’m sure others could do better with a reliable Internet connection.

[Burrawang]

@rsewell

@Burrawang

complete nonsense typical of the many inaccurate accusations that abound on this website when anyone honestly states they put their unswerving trust in the Holy Bible far above the fallible conjectures of man.

If you are dogmatic for a literal interpretation, suit yourself.

Dear Ron,
it’s not that I am being dogmatic for a literal interpretation, it is that the text itself is a faithful historical description by God Himself, Who inspired the author to write exactly what he wrote.

It is abundantly clear to me that the intention of the author of Genesis regarding the text about the creation and the Global Flood is written as a historical account, which is acknowledged as being historical narrative by Hebrew Professor Barr of Oxford.

Regarding Barr, as a reliable witness, you need to read the article at:

Don't miss this point

God Bless,
jon

[Burrawang]

@Terry_Sampson

Jon, you’ve misattributed the “it doesn’t matter” comment — that was Roy, not me.

Apologies Terry, my intention was to answer two contributors with one post, but as it would appear there are clear differences between Roy’s views and yours, that perhaps was not wise.

@Terry_Sampson

you’re blurring two separate things in Barr’s quote: the intent of the ancient writers and the beliefs of modern scholars. Barr made it clear that the authors of Genesis meant their text as history, but he and nearly all Hebrew scholars did not believe those events literally happened.

No, I disagree Terry, it is the very fact that the eminent Hebrew scholar Professor Barr of Oxford University, was convinced the intention of the author of Genesis was to write the text as accurate real history, as he was inspired by God Himself Who was an eyewitness to the historical events of the creation and the Global Flood.
Yes, I agree that, “Barr made it clear that the authors of Genesis meant their text as history,” and that is the point here.

The very fact that such an eminent Hebrew Professor as Barr did not believe the text as actual history is utterly irrelevant, the salient matter here is that the intent of the ancient author of the text about the creation week and the Global Flood recorded it as REAL HISTORY.
There are millions, and probably billions upon billions of people who do not believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God to mankind. So what, that simply means that as Christians, we have a lot of work to do, but it doesn’t in any way whatsoever, detract from the reality that Barr, an academic best placed to interpret the Hebrew and honestly the intent of the writer of the text of Genesis.

Not that such expert academic analysis is required, as the text itself is very clear and straightforward, using unequivocal language that even a child would know that it is written as an account of what occurred, and a day, having an evening and a morning can ONLY be interpreted as a normal day as we know a day to be.

@Terry_Sampson

So Barr’s testimony isn’t proof that Genesis is historical narrative in fact — only that it was written with that intent. That’s a crucial distinction.

I believe you may have had or be having a stroke. You’re very confused.

You seem to be stuck on this, pedantically not realising that it is WHAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR INTENDED THE AUDIENCE TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS HERE.
Firstly, I don’t for a second believe that the author was writing what he believed to be an untruth, a lie if you will.
Secondly, I don’t believe for a second that God Himself would inspire the author to write an untruth, a lie if you will.

Logically that means that what he was writing as REAL HISTORY IS REAL HISTORY.

I am not having a stroke and I am not confused in way, this is ever so elementary, that I wonder about the degree of illogical deception that is on display here.

I wish you well,
God Bless,
jon

[Roy]

@Burrawang

For example, the Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr wrote:

‘ … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

@Burrawang

One of the most eminent scholars of Hebrew of his time, stating ever so clearly that:

so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

Where did “probably” go?

After you’ve explained that, you can explain

• how to get from one persons view of the consensus 40 years ago to the actual consensus today
• how to get from conveying ideas to conveying those ideas as real history as opposed to as myth or legend.

Bonus points are available if you can tell me the words before the extract you first quoted, which were replaced by ‘…’.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Burrawang

Yes, I agree that, “Barr made it clear that the authors of Genesis meant their text as history,” and that is the point here.

• Right, so we both agree that Barr said that Genesis’ authors wrote with the intention of conveying history. And we both agree that Barr didn’t claim the events actually happened as written, only that the writers intended them as history. What we don’t agree on is whether God dictated a factually accurate text that the ancient authors wrote or allowed the authors to use their own cosmology when writing the text. Recognizing literary intent of the human authors doesn’t settle the question of factual accuracy—it just clarifies what the writers were aiming at. And you, being a YEC, choose to believe that the people who wrote the text wrote what God dictated; but I, not being a YEC, choose to believe that they wrote the text using the human cosmology available at the time.
• Babylonian Map of the World - Wikipedia
• Meanwhile, you, a YEC, want everybody to believe that God was and is a confused baraminologist. And I, not a YEC, ain’t agreeing.

[Argon]

@Roy

After you’ve explained that, you can explain

• how to get from one persons view of the consensus 40 years ago to the actual consensus today

Missing step 1: Demonstrate that the proposed consensus view was the consensus view while ignoring Augustine, Philo, Maimonides and even reviews of the many Hebrew scholars today. I know that Creation.con takes a rather creative spin on things but seriously, the literal interpretation of Genesis has not been the ‘consensus’ for over two millenia among Jewish and Christian scholars. There has been a long history of different takes on Genesis as true history, proto-history, allegory, and myth among scholars inside and outside the faiths that include Genesis in their holy books.

[Roy]

The original claim wasn’t about whether Hebrew scholars today think Genesis is history, it was about what Hebrew scholars today think was the intent of the authors of Genesis.

Were the authors of Genesis writing accounts they intended their audience to read as real history, or as legends? Did they even distinguish the two?

[Argon]

These stories were initially passed down orally, embellished and moulded, among peoples with a very different sense of modern historical accounts and storytelling.

Given that we can cite prominent and influential Jewish thinkers and Christian theologians back millennia ago that proposed Genesis might not be interpreted literally, I think we can say that there was an ancient debate about whether there was a consensus view on the intent of those who passed down the stories

[Roy]

@Argon

These stories were initially passed down orally, embellished and moulded, among peoples with a very different sense of modern historical accounts and storytelling.

Agreed. It wouldn’t make much sense to insist that the people who wrote Genesis meant it as a historical account if those people didn’t write historical accounts.

[T_aquaticus]

@Burrawang

One of the most eminent scholars of Hebrew of his time,

Wouldn’t this be the conjectures of a fallible human?

@Burrawang

I would have thought that what professor’s of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university at that time TRULY BELIEVED to be the case, about the authors intended meaning of the Biblical Text to anyone reading it, would make it abundantly clear to the contributors on this website, that it is written as HISTORICAL NARRATIVE,

To borrow from someone who posts here . . .

The Genesis story has a man named Man, a woman named Living created from a rib, a tree that gives knowledge of Good and Evil, another tree that gives immortality, a serpent that talks, and a magical garden where God moves about. You think this sounds like a historical narrative? Wow.