NO OTHER DEITY AGAINST ME...

So how do you react to the charge of being inconsistent in your taking of truth from God's Word over science, in that you take the word of science over God's Word in relation to the moving of the sun as the cause of day and night?

Men like Martin Luther and leaders of the inquisition were quite willing to take a stand against that science in their day. How come you decided to go along with those who have caved in to science on that issue?

 

You got the wording wrong. Ex 20:1-3 reads,

"I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

The word for "gods" is elohim, the same word used to describe God Himself. The word itself simply means "god" in the general sense, so when you use the word "deity" you'r contextually correct. However:

The word for "before" is panim, which contextually means "ahead of". It DOES NOT mean "against". That is an incorrect interoretation.

 

True - humanism vs Christianity. Evolutionism preaches the doctrines of humanism - and all atheist evolutionists freely "admit" the obvious in that case. Other kinds of evolutionists are less forthcoming.

But more "instructive" is that both Christian and non-Christian evolutionists like to portray the junk-science myths of evolutionism "as if" that was in fact - real science.

But as already noted - we have 4 glaring examples where even the atheist evolutionists may be found exposing the gaffs, flaws and blunders of the junk-science known as evolutionism.

And why trade that in for the one true Creator God?

I ask you -- why?

 

Correct.

 

In fact, as has been repeatedly pointed out... in "REAL" science the notion of relative motion and of desribing motion relative to the plane of the observer was promoted by no less of a scientist that Einstein.

But desperate attempts to appeal to junk-science and downgrade the Bible far beyond just the first 3 chapters of God's Word - include attacks on "real" science in the form of arguments claiming that the Word is untrustworthy if it uses Einstein's principle of motion relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

They do that in a kind of "any excuse is sufficient" flurry of attacks on the Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

O.K. I give up. Which version of the bible did you use A-Christian?

In my bible it says: Gen 3-5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

You shall be as gods(little g and plural) so one can never be as THE God of the universe!!!

Peace,

Tam

 

"But as already noted - we have 4 glaring examples where even the atheist evolutionists may be found exposing the gaffs, flaws and blunders of the junk-science known as evolutionism."

We do?

News to me.

YOur first is the impossibility of chemicals to form non-racemized polymers. This is dispite the references I have given you where very common materials act as catalysts to make optically pure organic compounds from common precursosrs.

Your second is the false horse series. Except that your whole argument boils down to misquoting scientists. Here is a good example with links to other examples of the same. People can read ALL of you false horse quotes and my responses.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2746/15.html#000220

You third is that archy is "true bird." You base this on the results of a 1980s conference in Europe. Excet that I have shown that the authors you cited actually were presenting material that shows that they though that archy was an intermediate. I then went further and gave you a long list of papers presented at the conference that show that all the other authors I could find were also presenting evidence that they felt showed archy was an intermediate. Yet you continue to make this claim and have not made the first attempt to justify your assertion. Will you ever?

Your fianl one is to talk about Asimov and his "MASSSIVE" decrease in entropy for evolution. Except that you eliminate the part of his quote where he disagrees with you and tells you why your claim is wrong. Are you saying you know more about entropy than your expert?

 

Panim is a preposition that comes from the word for face. To say "panim" (before) literally means "in front of the face". "Before me" is a good translation of this. So YHWH here is saying, "No other gods". There does not need to be any idea of being "against" Him - rather there are simply to be no other Gods. One might see the notion here that EVERYTHING is "before" YHWH - He sees EVERYTHING! So anything that man will worship is seen by His eyes (before Him). NO other Gods - period!

 

"It is one thing to attempt to understand what GOD is saying. It is totally another thing to come to one's own conclusions and call it fact."

Agreed.

But I think knowledge of languages can only help us to better understand God's word.

 

That's not my understanding of the word (I took a class on OT Greek and Hebrew in college). Perhaps someone else on the bb can verify.

In this case, with the word elohim, you're right.

Good to know you're attempting to become acquainted with the source text etymology. It's indeed worthwhile.

God bless,
Johnv

 

A_Christian,

I was just talking about "panim", not about creationism! Yes I agree that Adam and Noah were real people.

 

Hey guys I goofed just a bit in my first post. I pulled out my BHS after work. The text of EX 20:3 says "'al panim". In this case the preposition is "'al" which CAN mean against OR before. The phrase "'al-panim" (joined together by a maqqef) is somewhat of an idiom meaning "in front of".

I had said panim was preposition - I had meant that "lif'ney" (from panim, meaning face) was the preposition but that was still wrong! I better check by BHS from now on before I expound foolishly!