Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 95 of 95

Thread: Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate

  1. #76
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    “Every good thing ( and it might be said that the story of Genesis and the tool the Lord used to create life (Evolution) could be placed into this verse for they truly are "good" things the Lord has made)


    given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or
    (The "whom" here is clearly only God, for God is unchanged with "no variation" and not effected by time, for God is not bound by time).”


    shifting shadow ( while it is true that God is unchanged, this is now compared to the world of nature and its ever-changing state. The idea ever-changing "shifting shadows"is talking about how Nature is not to be compared to the Lord steadfastness...This builds on the verse at James 1:11 were we just read about how all of nature changes and what it today blooming with soon fade and is "destroyed"...)
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 01-31-2015 at 11:51 AM.

  2. #77
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    “Every good thing ( and it might be said that the story of Genesis and the tool the Lord used to create life (Evolution) could be placed into this verse for they truly are "good" things the Lord has made)


    given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or
    (The "whom" here is clearly only God, for God is unchanged with "no variation" and not effected by time, for God is not bound by time).”


    shifting shadow ( while it is true that God is unchanged, this is now compared to the world of nature and its ever-changing state. The idea ever-changing "shifting shadows"is talking about how Nature is not to be compared to the Lord steadfastness...This builds on the verse at James 1:11 were we just read about how all of nature changes and what it today blooming with soon fade and is "destroyed"...)
    If so, then the Christ himself would have certainly recognized this and said as you maintain; this is just “the world of nature and its ever-changing state”, and not like My Father when He cursed the fig tree.

    But He didn't recognized “the world of nature and its ever-changing state”. But rather it’s UN-“shifting shadow” as it was intended. If we want to ***ume anything less, we obscure His reasoning He stood upon that day! At this point, I can’t tell you how shaky a contrary position sounds.

    "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" – Jesus Christ (Mark 11:14)

  3. #78
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    [SIZE=3]If so, then the Christ himself would have certainly recognized this and said ......
    um...what???!

    You cant interpet the lack of something in the Bible as for or against anything...
    The Text teaches what I believe, and I try to NEVER add to the text...what it says is what I beleive.

    When we start to say "Well why did not Christ say ___" we are going off the deep end.


    Its like a guy I knew who was debating me over his being gay.
    He defense of being gay was to say to me, "If being gay was wrong then certainly Jesus would have spoken out on the topic".....

    He was attempting to use the lack of something in the Bible as support for his views.
    You cant do that...

  4. #79
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    . But rather it’s UN-“shifting shadow” as it was intended.

    UN-shifting shadows?

    I think you totally misunderstand that verse...

    lets quote it to make sure we both see the verse as it is written:

    James 1:17 New International Version
    Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.



    Do you see the point of the part dealing with the "shifting shadows?
    The idea is that shadows are from the sun, and the sun is always changing its position, its never stopped, and so that is the context here.
    The idea is that God is unchanged, as compared to "shifting shadows"







    That is why it says the father does not change like____ ______. Like what?



    Like "shifting shadows"
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 01-31-2015 at 02:09 PM.

  5. #80
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    What James is talking about in these set of verses is that God is unchanged....and this is totally unlike nature around us that is always changing.

    James goes on at 1:11 to point to flowers that today bloom yet under the hot sun it " withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed"


    James is showing us that all things created and part of nature (including evolution, the creation, the story of Genesis) are not like God at all.

    Creation changes and is always going from one state to a different state.
    But God does not change....God is constant....unchanging.


    The term "Shifting shadow" = the universe, the whole Genesis creation, the evolution of all life

  6. #81
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    You cant interpet the lack of something in the Bible as for or against anything...
    The Text teaches what I believe, and I try to NEVER add to the text...what it says is what I beleive.
    Translated if I'm understanding you correctly; "The Text teaches what I believe" and nothing more???

    If it comes that close to upsetting you, what else can one expect but to launch a huge defense saying I'm adding to scripture. Nice try, but entirely false. You're attempt at dissing me is actually dissing scripture, not me. Take it before the Lord brother.

    Because the Lord cursed an UN-changed understanding of nature, you now attack me because I pointed it out? What exactly was added? Nothing! The only thing changed here is an uprooting of your narrow and unyielding view, even when that view can’t accept the truth. And that’s my fault? Com’n.

  7. #82
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    [SIZE=3]Translated if I'm understanding you correctly; "The Text teaches what I believe" and nothing more???
    It teaches what Im talking about...as for could it teach even more?....it could, as I have many other things I have not talked about that this verse also deals with that I also teach.

    But for this topic, it is true that the verse teaches the same as what Im talking about.....yes

  8. #83
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    James is pointing out that nature changes.



    That is what Im saying...that is what James is saying also ...

  9. #84
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    so as we see, "Nature changes' and that comes out in this Jamese 1:17 verse with the phrase "Shifting shadows"


    In our modern world we tend to view shadows at things that don't move...because we turn on a light in a room and the shadow cast by the light bulb does not move .
    But we have to get rid of that modern mindset and go back to the world of the writer's time.
    The shadows that James had in mind in his words are cast by the sun.
    The shadow was a thing that was always known to be never be stopped.
    A shadow cast by the sun is always shifting in its position....always in motion.

    The whole concept of the "Sundial" was based on this understanding that the shifting shadows were means to mark the time.




    Now when we take this correct understanding of the "shifting shadows" to the verse you listed, we can see easily that James was simply comparing the stationary Lord to the ever-changing world found in nature,

  10. #85
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    James is pointing out that nature changes.


    That is what Im saying...that is what James is saying also ...
    Where does James say that the original design intents of God change? By what I can tell (and as with the fig tree), that is one heckuva shaky limb to hang reasoning on V17. Not even close, but your welcome to try.

  11. #86
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    UN-shifting shadows?

    I think you totally misunderstand that verse..."
    No, just a condensed rewording.

    “with whom there is no, , shifting shadow”
    Or un-shifting. No change.

  12. #87
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    [SIZE=3]Where does James say that the original design intents of God change?
    James compares and contrasts the Lord to the "shifting shadows"


    the shadows are caused by what again?...oh yes, the SUN!

    The sun is a creation of who again?......oh yes, the LORD!



    While I don't think James had the story of Genesis in mind when he wrote this section of his letter, it still does relate to the universe that God made that he declared to be "Good" in Genesis.

    What James is pointing out to us is that while humans tend to be fickle and our hearts are always changing, the lord is not.
    The Lord does not change.
    The Lord is not fickle.
    What the Lord was like yesterday he will be like tomorrow.


    This is the idea behind what James says about the lord being NOT LIKE "shifting shadows"

    In other words, God is not like the creation he created and called "good"
    So this points us to the understanding that even if the universe is subject to change and destruction, it still is called "Good" by the Lord.




    So there is nothing at all that James has written here that runs counter to the teachings of Evolution.

    In fact, the idea of evolution is kinda what James was pointing to with his use of the term, "shifting shadows"

  13. #88
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    James compares and contrasts the Lord to the "shifting shadows"

    the shadows are caused by what again?...oh yes, the SUN!

    The sun is a creation of who again?......oh yes, the LORD!
    Pure conjecture. Good night, James isn't comparing anything! James is describing what comes from the Lord, not setting up contrast. Back to the verse:

    V17 “Every good thing given, , is from above, coming down from the Father”
    While I don't think James had the story of Genesis in mind when he wrote this section of his letter, it still does relate to the universe that God made that he declared to be "Good" in Genesis.
    That’s because me as the evolutionist can’t understand things continue just as God intended.

    What James is pointing out to us is that while humans tend to be fickle and our hearts are always changing,
    Humans, or the children of God?

    “be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness” (II Peter 3:17)
    This is the idea behind what James says about the lord being NOT LIKE "shifting shadows"
    Half right, because me as the evolutionist doesn’t want to be reminded that “every good thing given” just as the Lord understood the fig tree to be under creation that day – as it was intended – unchanged from the original design – creation - from God the Father - which remains intact and unchanged – took action because of that aberration from the original design. I do apologize for bringing that up again but I’m afraid it’s true; God’s design hasn't changed.

    So what your trying to feed me here is God changes His mind on what He gives? But that’s what you’re saying. God doesn’t change but everything He creates He does change? See what I mean by unyielding? ‘God doesn’t change, but everything in His big bag of tricks He’s constantly fiddling with’? Preposterous!

    Man is still created in the similitude of God (James 3:9), and dies, and another life comes into the world bearing what? Is “made after the similitude of God”, unchanged from the original intent of design clear down from His first created man. You say this has changed? No, I don’t think so. I think you will probably try to foster this idle notion on others too. All it is, is an unscriptural flaunt. But remember,


    “Love does not brag, it is not puffed up” (I Cor. 13:4)
    But this most certainly is a brag Alan! When you say God is constantly fiddling with the original design of creation, you are inserting meaning. Unchanged? “Oh that only belongs to God”. True, He is unchanged, but v17 isn’t telling us things coming from Him are always different. V17 declares creation that continues to come from Him aren’t given to change. To say He is always diluting the original design is tampering with this verse.

    In other words, God is not like the creation he created and called "good"
    So this points us to the understanding that even if the universe is subject to change and destruction, it still is called "Good" by the Lord.

    So there is nothing at all that James has written here that runs counter to the teachings of Evolution.

    In fact, the idea of evolution is kinda what James was pointing to with his use of the term, "shifting shadows"
    Conjecture with a capitol C. The whole point was that everything coming from Him is without “shifting shadow”, not Him trying to - whatever you’re point is – trying to mix creation all up to make life interesting? Geesh, And I’m the one adding to scripture eh?

    “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17)
    One thing that appears most convenient to your advantage is that you don’t want to address me specifically when I ask a specific question, , just a generalized response. I can only say it is generalized when you would rather not engage my terminology. For your answer doesn’t come very near at all at answering me regarding it.

    Post#85: Where does James say that the original design intents of God change?
    Last edited by MichaellS; 02-01-2015 at 04:55 AM.

  14. #89
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Yes James is indeed comparing and contrasting the Lord to the world of nature at 1:17

    This is actually very clear as its simply James building on points he had raised in 1:11 where James talks about how men who have high position now will soon p*** away like a flower that "withers" under the hot sun.

    James goes on to encourage people to stand firm in their faith at 1:12 but this also is compared to other men who when tempted "they are dragged away"

    So James is clearly comparing and contrasting in this whole section of his letter things with other things.

    Now when we get to your verse at James 1:17 we can see very easily that James is continuing to compare and contrast in his letter.
    The verse at :17 talks about "Good Gifts"...but what gifts is James talking about?

    the gift James is talking about appeared in his letter as "Faith" and "Wisdom" and "perseverance" leading to a "mature" believer.
    James goes on to say that such gifts come from a Lord that does not change like the ever changing "shifting shadows"


    So now we have a very clear understanding of what James is teaching us in this first part of his letter.

    James compares and contrasts the Lord to the world of nature.
    For nature is always changing (shifting) but the Lord is not.

    yet, in Genesis we learn what the Lord called this ever- shifting nature that he created...He called it "Good"




    So there is not one single word in this section of James that goes against the fundamental teaching of Evolution, (and that is the ability of nature to "change")
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 02-01-2015 at 09:51 AM.

  15. #90
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Now some Young Earthers are totally mixed up as to what the Bible is teaching us as to what happens on the 4th day?

    The Young Earther reads the Text for the 4th day, and thinks "Oh no!, it says the sun was not made until now?....I must go back and fix what I teach happened on the 1st day!!!!"

    this is why the young earther came up with the concept of the "sourceless light"
    They had to invent this idea because they had read about a light at the start of Genesis, and now they believe the source for light was not made until the 4th day....

    Thats why all Young Earth teachers are guilty of adding to the word of god.

    They have to add to the word of God in order to twist the text into teaching their ideas about a Young earth.



    However....if you dont feel the need to race to rescue the Lord from what the text says by adding on your own to the text the idea of a "Sourceless light" then you will start to see actually that what the text says on the 4th day fits correctly with what Science teaches us about the universe.


    So.....I will begin to take a closer look about what the text really says in black and white on the 4th day....and I will see if we really need to add anything to it?....

    or does the text work just fine as written?

  16. #91
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    I would like to continue this, but not without an answer to my question. You see, I gave up on asking you to define your use of the term “evolution” some time ago. This is especially true when you like to couple the term with your frequent, yet disturbingly random points.

    There simply isn't a clear understanding of what it is your saying when you say “evolution”. That's why I therefore find the need to just come out and ask you:


    Post#85: Where does James say that the original design intents of God change?
    For one minute and I think you are referring to the design of His given life cycle, the next minute I think you are wanting to name my monkey cousin. It’s all over the place.

    If you don’t mind, let’s try to put this one behind us by answering this please.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by MichaellS; 02-02-2015 at 07:18 PM.

  17. #92
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.


    Thus we see by looking close to the Text on the 4th day that at no point does it say that God made the "sun"on the 4th day.

    What was different on the 4th day.
    On the 4th day we see clearly that the Text only deals with the key terms of " greater" and "lesser"
    greater and lesser are terms that are dealing with the "amount"of light......not its "source"


    So on the 4th day the amount of light does change, but the source is not talked about at all.

    So there is not reason to believe that the sun was created on the 4th day..
    Thus, if the sun was not created on the 4th day, then we dont have to invent a "sourceless light" to understand where the "Let there be light" verse at the start of the story got its light from!!!!!!!

  18. #93
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    But then you may say to me - "But Alan, you teach that the sun was not made on the 4th day. But now if the sun is just another star, then why does the text say that God made the stars on the 4th day?"



    The answer is......the Text actually does not say that God "made" the stars on the 4th day......(go check it out)
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 02-02-2015 at 01:33 PM.

  19. #94
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.


    Thus we see by looking close to the Text on the 4th day that at no point does it say that God made the "sun"on the 4th day.

    What was different on the 4th day.
    On the 4th day we see clearly that the Text only deals with the key terms of " greater" and "lesser"
    greater and lesser are terms that are dealing with the "amount"of light......not its "source"


    So on the 4th day the amount of light does change, but the source is not talked about at all.

    So there is not reason to believe that the sun was created on the 4th day..
    Thus, if the sun was not created on the 4th day, then we dont have to invent a "sourceless light" to understand where the "Let there be light" verse at the start of the story got its light from!!!!!!!
    I'm sorry, was this intended for me?

  20. #95
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    So now that we have looked at the events of the 4th day and see no reason at all to believe that it was on that day that the "sun" was made, we can go back to the start of the Genesis story and go over it point by point and see how it works.

    I will post a short scripture followed by what we have come to see it is talking about.

    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So right here at the very start of the Genesis account we have the creation of the "Heavens"
    The term "Heavens" as we have discussed means a varity of things in the Bible, but among the meanings of the term we find that it means the whole canopy of the stars in the sky.
    The sun, being a member of the "heavens" is thus created in our story at this time.
    In addition, we also see that the "earth" is also listed as having been now created by God.


    2 Now the earth was formless and empty,
    ...We have looked at the fact that the word "was" also has the meaning of being "was/became" . The terms "formless" meaning with an unsure outline, and "empty" meaning no people, are describing the state of the earth.


    darkness was over the surface of the deep,
    ...We have already looked at the reason for this "darkness", and that it was caused by the thick clouds that the early sea was wrapped in as described in *** 38.
    The term "the deep" is always talking about a great sea.....

    So what we have at this point of the story is a description of an early earth that is covered with a great sea, and is wrapped in darkness due to a covering of thick clouds.


    We now come to the key verse in the Genesis story that will help us understand the point of view of the whole of the creation week account.


    and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •