Is abortion always a sin?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

In the beginning of human history brother sister marriages were allowed because there is nothing sinful about marriage itself. It is simply the union between two people who promise to love and cherish one another. Furthermore, mate availability was limited to family since there were no other non-family humans around. Additionally, the genetic defect stigma which such marriages were to become associated with did not exist because mankind was closer to perfection.

So when exactly did humans get lower back problems, a worthless Appendix, messed up eyes and problems with wisdom teeth? I really havn't the time for this.

 

[Tricky]

So when exactly did humans get lower back problems, a worthless Appendix, messed up eyes and problems with wisdom teeth? I really havn't the time for this.

Devolution, of course. You know, survival of the unfittest?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So when exactly did humans get lower back problems, a worthless Appendix, messed up eyes and problems with wisdom teeth? I really havn't the time for this.

The problems with the wisdom teeth seem obvious from a literalist's POV.

 

[Doctor X]

Still making false claims I see.

Care to provide evidence of your first assertion above...and while your at it, you might want to provide evidence of your claim that I come to preach.

Radook:
It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars that the only difference between our year and the biblical year is that the biblical year is 360 days long while ours is 365.


Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Now, if I was an unkind man, I would note that had the individual expended just a fraction of the energy he wasted having his "moment" on reading the posts, including his sermon above, he may have seen that and not have made a fool out of himself again.

Of course, that would require him to be honest. I remain an optimist.

--J.D.

 

[LW]

I've heard it suggested that in translation, the term for "years" was confused with the word "months". This seems quite logical to me. A 900 month old man would be about 75 years old, which is indeed quite old for the time, but not beyond the boundaries of believability.

Before you seriously consider that possibility, I'd suggest you to check Genesis 5:15-16.

I personally find it easier to believe that Bible authors followed the old tradition of exaggerating life spans of their suppposed ancestors than that a 5 1/2 year old boy becomes a father.

(Perhaps the most striking example of this kind of exaggeration is the Sumerian king list that includes some kings who ruled over 16000 years.)

 

[Doctor X]

Well that is patently ridiculous:

(Perhaps the most striking example of this kind of exaggeration is the Sumerian king list that includes some kings who ruled over 16000 years.)

the world is only 10,000 years old!

--J.D.

 

[csense]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radook: It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars that the only difference between our year and the biblical year is that the biblical year is 360 days long while ours is 365.
Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quod erat demonstrandum

Now, if I was an unkind man, I would note that had the individual expended just a fraction of the energy he wasted having his "moment" on reading the posts, including his sermon above, he may have seen that and not have made a fool out of himself again.

Of course, that would require him to be honest. I remain an optimist.

--J.D.

Well, that's evidence alright...evidence that you're a moron, or worse.

It's clear to anyone who follows these threads that the assertion was directed at me.

You're simply a fool.

Stay away from me.

 

[Doctor X]

Apparently he cannot follow a discussion.

Understandable when all he can contribute is a tempert-tantrum and argumentum ad hominem.

Is he so riddl'd with vanity that he thinks every comment applies to him?

Again, had he expended just a modicum of his effort to maintain his sense of "injur'd merit" to reading the posts he would be able to follow the conversation.

For conversation is not his purpose.

He came to preach and preach he has. He has only himself to blame that the congregation ignores him.

If he dislikes having his baser motives thus exposed he would do well to drop them.

--J.D.

 

[Radrook]

Not at all. It could simply be that Jesus, like people have done for all time, was using them as parables.

When Jesus used parables he made sure they were understood as parables and could not be mistaken for fact. If you had read the Bible you would know that parables are introiduced as parables:

Mark 12:1
And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.


Clear enough right?
It is a parable.

Yet for others, such would always remain enigmas.
Some, like the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, would be mistaken as factual.

Rest assured. however that those deserving to understand would.

If I say, "haven't you read the story of the tortoise and the hare?", does that make me a liar?

Surely you jest.

Of course, it could be that Jesus was simply mistaken.

You are free to believe that if you wish.
But, as you already know, that is not an acceptable alternative for a Christian.

But Jesus was known to contradict himself on occasion. Does that make him a liar? Nope, just moody. [/B]

That is what you perceive Jesus to be doing because you lack the necessary knowledge to understand.
That is not what Jesus did.


BTW
We have absolutely no basis to say that Jesus was talking metaphorically in the case of referring to the cities of Sodom and Gomorra or Niniveh. These cities are not some mythological constructs like the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz. These cities show archeological evidence of having existed. In fact, the area where the cities of Sodom and Gomorra existed show signs of the destruction that the Bible tells us about.

Additionally, for thousands of years neither the Jews, nor Christians, nor Moslems considered these events myths. Only recently with the popularization of atheistic evolution and the attempt made by atheistic scientists to discredit the Bible has the Bible account come under this type of attack. If these things were myths, then they would have been understood as myth immediately. They would not have had to wait thousands of years until an atheistic view became popular in order to be put in doubt.

It seems as if you haven't read the Bible.
I will tell you why you give me that impression.
If you had read the Bible and not just pecked here and there to find what you believe to be faults
then you would have readily seen that when the Bible is speaking historically and in symbols it differentiates so that the reader knows it is speaking in symbols.

For example, the prophesies of the OT are all introduced so that the reader knows they are prophesies. Anyone who has read the introductions to these prophecies knows this as a fact. We are clearly told when the prophets are recieving information via visions, as Ezekiel did, or via dreams as Joseph and Daniel did. .

In Jesus case we are either told directly that they are parables or Jesus' tone changes so that we know as readers that he is shifting into the parable mode. At other times he gives us the interpretation of what he has just said, as in the parable of the tares and the wheat, or the harvest.

AT other times he allows the context to explain the parable. As when he spoke of the pharasees in terms of a rich man and the common people in terms of a poor man whom the pharasees considererd accursed.

ohn 7:49
But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.


It is also important to keep well in mind that the historical events in Genesis were considered fact by the Jews, Moslems and Christians for thousands of years.

Only recently with the popularization of atheistic evolution and its efforts to discredit the Bible have these recorded events been systematically attacked as being unscientific and therefore highly improbable. All of which is merely a statement of disbelief in a creator who has the power to do what the Bible tells us he did.

Mark 10:27
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Unfortumately the popularity of these athesistic anitbiblical ideas has resulted in the inability to intellectually see and hear what the Bible speaks if clearly. The same sick spiritual condition that Jesus' perceived then but having a different cause.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Also important is many biblical accounts came under criticism only to be proven fact later when archeologists had to retract and admit that they had been wrong in assuming that the Bible writers were lying. Which brings up the question as to why these archeologists would assume such a thing in the first place and feel the need to go out of their way to discredit the Bible.
Yes, going along with this attack is popular.
It makes one seem sophisticated.
But it is not necessary.
____________________________________________________


scriptures are from KJV

 

[Doctor X]

I feel like I am sweeping up after a nervous puppy:

We have absolutely no basis to say that Jesus was talking metaphorically in the case of referring to the cities of Sodom and Gomorra or Niniveh (sic). These cities are not some mythological constructs like the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz. These cities show archeological evidence of having existed.

No.

Nineveh, yes.

Sodom and Gomorrah, no.

Old archaeologists "wandering about the desert with a Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other" have tried to find confirmation for the stories. As with the Exodus and Conquest, more modern archaeology has found something completely different.

Once is interesting is that, just as evidence of a Troy exists, if evidence of the cities of S and G did exist, it does not mean one has found evidence to support the myth any more than one has found a wooden horse.

--J.D.

 

[Beancounter]

But, as you already know, that is not an acceptable alternative for a Christian.

So the debate stops right here

Additionally, for thousands of years neither the Jews, nor Christians, nor Moslems considered these events myths. Only recently with the popularization of atheistic evolution and the attempt made by atheistic scientists to discredit the Bible has the Bible account come under this type of attack. If these things were myths, then they would have been understood as myth immediately. They would not have had to wait thousands of years until an atheistic view became popular in order to be put in doubt.

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat and there were dragons and unicorns. Belief in a situation does not make that situation fact.

The reason the popularization of evolution is "recent" is because it is a reasonably "recent" theory. Since its introduction it has continually been challenged and fine tuned by biologists etc and will continue to be so until all the questions have been answered. Evolution is a theory that fits the facts as we know them today (fossils, carbon dating etc), creationists on the other hand either ignore these facts and regard a book (written before the flat earthers and unicorns were around) as the real facts or they bend the facts to fit their theory. This I do not understand.

Throughout the ages science has come up with new theories, some of which have "stuck" and some of which have been proven to be incorrect (alchemy etc). However, as with evolution those which have "stuck" continue to be challenged and modified all the time.

You are not prepared to challenge your belief system. This I also do not understand.

 

[Doctor X]

You are not prepared to challenge your belief system. This I also do not understand.

It is emotionally easier to seek confirmation of a belief than a challenge.

--J.D.

 

[Radrook]

What about the cosmology? Do you believe in a (solid) firmament? Waters above the heavens, and therefore above the sun, moon, stars???

I bet you have gone into pick and choose mode for these.

I would not bet on that if I were you.

The Bible does not say that the firmament was solid or that it was above the moon and stars.

It clearly tells us that it was watery.

Also, the waters are not said to be above the heavens.
They are said to be above the waters.
That is above the waters that flow on earth.
Such as in oceans and rivers and lakes and seas.
The waters suspended above the waters formed a canopy which those on the ground would view as the sky.

Genesis:
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

Such a canopy provided extra shielding from harmful solar radiation such as cosmic rays. This water canopy contributed to the flood described later in Genesis and ceased to exist.
Once the canopy was gone, solar radiation reaching the earth's surface would be far more intense. Some see a positive correlation between the removal of the canopy and the sudden drop in life spans after its removal.

 

[Beancounter]

Evolution is a theory that fits the facts as we know them today (fossils, carbon dating etc), creationists on the other hand either ignore these facts and regard a book (written before the flat earthers and unicorns were around) as the real facts or they bend the facts to fit their theory

Such a canopy provided extra shielding from harmful solar radiation such as cosmic rays. This water canopy contributed to the flood described later in Genesis and ceased to exist.
Once the canopy was gone, solar radiation reaching the earth's surface would be far more intense. Some see a positive correlation between the removal of the canopy and the sudden drop in life spans after its removal.

QED

 

[Radrook]

So the debate stops right here



For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat and there were dragons and unicorns. Belief in a situation does not make that situation fact.

If people believed that the earth was flat it wasn't because the Bible taught it.

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
KJV

Neither did the Bible say that this circle was supported by pillars, on the back of a Titan called Atlas, or balanced on the shell of some gargantuan turtle that swam through space:

Job 26:
7God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.

NLT

The Bible also speaks about the effects of the big bang by telling us that God stretches out the heavens:

Psalm 104
1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Now since the Bible writers did not have telescopes in order to view the earth from space, how is it that they knew it had no visible means of support? How didt they know that the earth was spherical and that the universe itself could be compared to a gauze that was being gradually stretched out?


Neither does the Bible teach anything about unicorns and satyrs. Such words are mistranslations of animals which do exist such as goats and bulls. You are probably reading the KJV where the translators botched it up. Modern translators don't do that. In fact, the KJV is the only one that I know that calls bulls unicorns and goats satyrs. All the other translators were savvy enough in the original language not to make such a ridiculous mistake.

The reason the popularization of evolution is "recent" is because it is a reasonably "recent" theory. Since its introduction it has continually been challenged and fine tuned by biologists etc and will continue to be so until all the questions have been answered. Evolution is a theory that fits the facts as we know them today (fossils, carbon dating etc), creationists on the other hand either ignore these facts and regard a book written before the flat earthers and unicorns were around as the real facts or they bend the facts to fit their theory.

First, it is not because of being recent tat a theory is either acceptable or not acceptable to a Christian. There are plenty of recent theories that are. The Big bang theory for example is OK.
Such concepts as relativity are OK as well as are most other scientific discoveries.

It is only when a scientific theory tells us that we are the product of blind chance and that we should totally ignore the preponderance of inductive observation which inexorably demands that we make the inductive leap of concluding that abiogenesis is impossible and that life can only come from life that Christians begin looking suspiciously upon a theory.

Neither is your theory accepted by all scientists.


Scientists Who Believe in God and reject Evolution
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html


The reason why not all scientists accept it is because it doesn't seem to fit the facts in certain crucial areas and requires that we ignore inductive observation as I pointed out above.

You are not prepared to challenge your belief system. This I also do not understand.

I am prepared and have had my beliefs challenged repeatedly.
But you have to understand that such challenges are interminable and I am finite.

So I do need my moments of changing the subject.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by radrook
I would not bet on that if I were you.

Why not? Inerrantist are almost like robots. Predictable and save bets.

Your post shows that quite well.

Originally posted by radrook
Genesis:
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

I don't know what translation you are using, but here are the same verses form the KJV:

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Also from here an explanation of firmament:

The most striking feature of the Old Testament world is the "firmament," a solid dome which separates "the waters from the waters" (Gen. l:6). The Hebrew word translated in the Latin Vulgate as firmamentum is raqia' whose verb form means "to spread, stamp or beat out." The material beaten out is not directly specified, but both biblical and extrabiblical evidence suggests that it is metal. A verb form of raqia' is used in both of these passages: "And gold leaf was hammered out..." (Ex. 39:3); and "beaten silver is brought from Tarshish" (Jer. l0:9).

This posted let's take a look at what you wrote earlier in your post:

Originally posted by radrook
The Bible does not say that the firmament was solid

The Bible says raqia' (see above), the Vulgate says firmamentum, the KJV says firmament and last but not least Martin Luther used the word Himmelsfeste for his German (my native tongue) translation.

Originally posted by radrook
or that it was above the moon and stars.

Granted, the KJV says "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night" (Gen 1:14) and not above.

Interesting to note that when the "lights are in the firmament" and there are waters above the firmament then the waters above the firmament are also above the lights in the firmament.

Originally posted by radrook
It clearly tells us that it was watery.

Umm, no.

Originally posted by radrook
Also, the waters are not said to be above the heavens.

"... from the waters which were above the firmament ..." (Gen 1:7) " ...And God called the firmament Heaven..." (Gen 1:8)

Let me recap: The firmanent is called heaven and there are waters above it.

Originally posted by radrook
They are said to be above the waters.
That is above the waters that flow on earth.
Such as in oceans and rivers and lakes and seas.

It you want to say that "the waters which were above the firmament" are above "the waters which were under the firmament from" you are correct - obviously.

Originally posted by radrook
The waters suspended above the waters formed a canopy which those on the ground would view as the sky.

Seems to me that the Bible says there there is a firmament "suspending" the waters above, ...

Originally posted by radrook
Such a canopy provided extra shielding from harmful solar radiation such as cosmic rays. This water canopy contributed to the flood described later in Genesis and ceased to exist.
Once the canopy was gone, solar radiation reaching the earth's surface would be far more intense. Some see a positive correlation between the removal of the canopy and the sudden drop in life spans after its removal.

Oh my, oh my ...

 

[Beancounter]

It is only when a scientific theory tells us that we are the product of blind chance and that we should totally ignore the preponderance of inductive observation .......

Please direct me to this preponderence, I would be interested to read about it.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Now since the Bible writers did not have telescopes in order to view the earth from space, how is it that they knew it had no visible means of support? How didt they know that the earth was spherical and that the universe itself could be compared to a gauze that was being gradually stretched out?

Circle = spherical - No. If you stand at a point and look around you what do you see? A circular plane, therefore why should ancient writers believe that the world was anything but circular (and flat). Why did they not say "the globe of the earth"?

"Spreads them out like a tent to live in" does not mean that they are continually expanding, rather that the heavens are spread around the earth like a canopy to cover the earth. I went camping the other day and my tent was the same size when I got up as it was when I went to sleep.

Radrook, again you are interpreting biblical statements to fit the facts as we know them today. God created the world in six days = big bang, relativity = lord knows?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Oh, and before I forget ...

Originally posted by radrook
This water canopy contributed to the flood described later in Genesis and ceased to exist.

If it contributed to the flood and ceased to exist, then why Psalms 148:4?

148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Is marrying one's brother's widow incest? Doesn't sound like a standard definition to me.

And I don't think there's much point to trying to argue with someone who says "Rest assured. however that those deserving to understand would."

 

[Doctor X]

Sits comfortably. Accepts a snifter from Seed. Prepares to enjoy the show.

My Lord of Emsworth:

Your interpretation of "firmament" is correct. Friedman translates it thusly:

And God said, "Let there be a space within the water, and let it separate between the water and water." And God made the space, and it separated between the water that was under the space and the water that was above the space. And it was so. And God called the space "skies." [Friedman--Ed.]

This is a "locative" reordering myth. God--Elohim does not create in this P myth. Indeed, "creating"--Aleph-Res-Bet--"has the original bsic meaning of 'divide' or 'separate.'" [Westermann--Ed.] This separation of Up from Down is a common myth.

Indeed, Elohim starts with a watery deep. It does not go away. Where is it? Hiding with Planet X? What about that water above the firmament in space?

The J creation myth has a different order of creation [Gen 2.4b-2.7--Ed.] Which one should we believe?

--J.D.

References:

Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed.

Westermann C. Genesis: An Introduction.

[Edited to provide the references.--Ed.]