20
   

Moses thought the world was at one time perfect. What happened?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 12:45 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Would saying Moses penned those words satisfy your need for clarity?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 01:59 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
did you forget that you wrote this one page back?

neologist wrote:
I understand the contoversy over Moses' authorship; but I continue believing he wrote, not only the Pentateuch, but also the book of Job.
Are you saying that because I believe Moses to be the author despite contrary assertions, there is no merit to the question "If the earth was at one time perfect, what happened?"


0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 02:08 pm
@InfraBlue,
OK, you interpret.
Deuteronomy. 32:4 "God's work is perfect"
God proclaimed his work "good". Genesis 1:31
So, what happened?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 02:12 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
. . . The chemistry that caused life . . .
Are you suggesting a causative agent?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 03:10 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Krumple wrote:
. . . The chemistry that caused life . . .
Are you suggesting a causative agent?


No.

I'm more referring to the process by which certain chemicals naturally form that are the building blocks to our current understanding of what makes up life on this planet.

It is not hard to figure out. There have been experiments conducted in a sterile vat which through a process of liquefying and evaporation produced RNA. The production of RNA is the first step before you get DNA. By the way RNA is self replicating but doesn't contain the full genetic structure of amino acids.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 07:50 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

neologist wrote:

You post a jpeg with Bill Flavell's name on it, but never checked to see whether he may be locked up somewhere?

Did I mention astronomical odds? I was being kind. What if the odds are zero?


Do you understand what an ad hom is? His personal status has nothing to do with the truth value of his statement.

Why bother with 'what if's'? We've got a lot of science describing what I outlined. Do you have a direct response to that?


http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/rockingchair2.gif
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 08:38 pm
@FBM,
I stand by my assessment of Flavell's scholarship.
Perhaps he was just trying to be cute.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 08:57 pm
@neologist,
How about addressing the content of his message, rather than estimating his acumen? Do you have any more evidence for your creator than he does for his dragon? Lots of very good books have been written about dragons.
Chumly
 
  3  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 09:01 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
The OP relates to the text, sir. It doesn't mean a rat's rump who wrote it. That I believe it was Moses has no bearing on what happened.
Clichéd presuppositional Christian apologetics, and as to your so-called "what happened" amuse yourself with your misplaced belief in miracles.
GorDie
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 10:35 pm
@FBM,
That is simply not true. To believe in that claim regarding invisible dragons being as factual as God would make one insane, as believing in delusion.
God has many, many more claims to fame. Apart from actual testimonies, I can crush any debate with a single Rock:

The Third Day of Creation can be, has been, {as it is scientifically factual: through evidence and proof} Proven.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 10:43 pm
@GorDie,
We're not talking about creation, we're talking about the creator. Where's your evidence that such a thing exists? I've got books on my shelf about dragons. Lots of details about them, too.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 07:52 am
@FBM,
I have.
There is a difference between evidence and proof.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 07:59 am
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:
Clichéd presuppositional Christian apologetics, and as to your so-called "what happened"
You don't read well, do you?
The "what happened" refers to our current less than perfect state of affairs. BTW, the thumb down bum is at it again, so I gave you a mercy +
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 08:48 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

I have.
There is a difference between evidence and proof.


A very big one. All I'm asking for is a modest amount of evidence. Genuine evidence. Not scripture. Scripture is the claim, not the evidence. Where's the evidence to support the claim? I hope you know me well enough by now that I'm not intending to be belligerent. Just concise. Cutting to the chase. Wink
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 10:41 am
@FBM,
neologist wrote:
. . .There is a difference between evidence and proof.
FBM wrote:
A very big one. All I'm asking for is a modest amount of evidence. Genuine evidence. Not scripture. Scripture is the claim, not the evidence. Where's the evidence to support the claim? I hope you know me well enough by now that I'm not intending to be belligerent. Just concise. Cutting to the chase. Wink
Many natural phenomena have been used ambidextrously: the complexity of a single cell, the grandeur of the universe, etc.

And, you can see how my assertion about the sublime nature of scripture has been received in this thread.

One thing that remains, however, is the fulfillment of prophecy. While some prophecy has been challenged as 'inconclusive' because fulfillment takes place within scripture. However, there remain a few that I consider worth consideration.

The first is the prophecy of Babylon's desolation.
Quote:
And Babylon will become piles of stones,
A lair of jackals,
An object of horror and something to whistle at,
Without an inhabitant. (Jeremiah 51:37)
I might point out that Setanta has his own vituperation of this assertion. But it is a fact that by the 4th century, Babylon was a pile of rocks.

Another is the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9: 24-27, regarding the appearance of the Messiah. Jews in the early part of the first century had interpreted this as relating to their time, and so a messianic expectation had developed. It set the time at or about 30 C.E. Newton correctly interpreted this 300 years ago, although a controversy still exists about the timing of the last week. You can Google it if you need to. I can break down the dates for you as well.

More, of course. But I'm a man of few words and don't have any pictures to show. Very Happy
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 01:50 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

OK, you interpret.
Deuteronomy. 32:4 "God's work is perfect"
God proclaimed his work "good". Genesis 1:31
So, what happened?

In regard to Deutereonomy 32:4 I had already stated earlier that mystics tend to run at the mouth before they consider what they're saying.

In regard to Genesis 1:31 it's part of a fable.

By the way, you're conflating the words "good" and "perfect." They're not synonymous.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 01:52 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
I had hoped to elicit discussion on whether Moses offered any text that would explain how he could continue to assert that God's work was perfect.

Awaiting that, I will try to get to individual objections as time permits.

So, why don't you cut to the chase and provide the texts you're fishing for?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 02:13 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
In regard to Deutereonomy 32:4 I had already stated earlier that mystics tend to run at the mouth before they consider what they're saying.

In regard to Genesis 1:31 it's part of a fable.
So you think it's all BS. I get it.
You wrote:
By the way, you're conflating the words "good" and "perfect." They're not synonymous.
Big difference between a 'perfect' person declaring his work 'good' and a 'good' person declaring his work 'perfect'
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 03:17 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
You wrote:
By the way, you're conflating the words "good" and "perfect." They're not synonymous.
Big difference between a 'perfect' person declaring his work 'good' and a 'good' person declaring his work 'perfect'

Yep. Conflation.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 03:45 pm
@InfraBlue,
Yep
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 05:32:41