Question for RJHinds and other Creationists that deny evidence

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your question has no validity, because the Holy Bible deals with truth and not hypothetical lies. Faith and belief is not void of reason and logic as you mistakenly believe. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

You are clearly just trying to avoid the question.

Your question has no validity, because the Holy Bible deals with truth and not hypothetical LIES. (my emphasis)

my question doesn't propose “ hypothetical LIES” but rather proposes “hypothetical ALTERNATIVE WORDS” being in the Bible. Reminder of that part of the question:

purely hypothetically, IF the Bible DID explicitly SAY … ( start of my question and my emphasis)

so, you can CLEARLY see it asks hypothetically IF the Bible DID explicitly SAY i.e. IF, hypothetically, what the Bible SAID was different and the question does NOT ask IF, hypothetically, the Bible said something OTHER than the truth. What is SAID to be the truth/lies does not necessarily equate with the actual truth/lies.
I am NOT asking in my question “hypothetically, if the Bible did not tell the truth i.e. told lies ...” nor words of that effect.
So your assertion that my “question has no validity” is based on a totally false premise.


The point of the question is to explores your RATIONAL in your BELIEF that the Bible "deals with truth" i.e. the BELIEF that the Bible always tells the truth and NOT whether it actually does. That can be done by asking you would you still believe the Bible if what it said was different and it said we evolved etc.


so what is your answer to the question?
Are you really that scared of answering it?
Should we take it then that you do not answer because you fear to do so would expose your religious beliefs as being irrational?
If not, then prove this to us by actually answering the question.

I will answer any/all your questions you may have if you just answer this one question -how is that not fair?

Originally posted by humy
You are clearly just trying to avoid the question.

Your question has no validity, because the Holy Bible deals with truth and not hypothetical LIES. (my emphasis)

my question doesn't propose “ hypothetical LIES” but rather proposes “hypothetical ALTERNATIVE WORDS” being in the Bible. Reminder of that part of the question:

[quote] pur ...[text shortened]... y/all your questions you may have if you just answer this one question -how is that not fair?

If, hypothetically, the Holy Bible was full of lies, it would not be the word of God or the Holy Bible. It would just be a Bible like any other religious book.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If, hypothetically, the Holy Bible was full of lies, it would not be the word of God or the Holy Bible. It would just be a Bible like any other religious book.

If, hypothetically, the Holy Bible was full of lies, ...

didn't you bother to read any of my post?
I clearly pointed out the fact that my question does NOT ask what if, hypothetically, the “Holy Bible was full of lies”.

Reminder of what I just said:

my question doesn't propose “ hypothetical LIES” but rather proposes “hypothetical ALTERNATIVE WORDS” being in the Bible. Reminder of that part of the question:
[quote]purely hypothetically, IF the Bible DID explicitly SAY … ( start of my question and my emphasis)

so, you can CLEARLY see it asks hypothetically IF the Bible DID explicitly SAY i.e. IF, hypothetically, what the Bible SAID was different and the question does NOT ask IF, hypothetically, the Bible said something OTHER than the truth. What is SAID to be the truth/lies does not necessarily equate with the actual truth/lies.
I am NOT asking in my question “hypothetically, if the Bible did not tell the truth i.e. told lies ...” nor words of that effect.
So your assertion that my “question has no validity” is based on a totally false premise.
[/quote]
how can I make that any clearer?


So, back to the topic:

what is your answer to the question this thread poses?
Should we take it then that you do not answer because you fear to do so would expose your religious beliefs as being irrational?
If not, then prove this to us by actually answering the question.

I will answer any/all your questions you may have if you just answer this one question -how is that not fair?

Originally posted by humy

If, hypothetically, the Holy Bible was full of lies, ...

didn't you bother to read any of my post?
I clearly pointed out the fact that my question does [b]NOT ask what if, hypothetically, the “Holy Bible was full of lies”.

Reminder of what I just said:
[quote]
my question doesn't propose “ hypothetical LIES” but rather proposes “hyp ...[text shortened]... ny/all your questions you may have if you just answer this one question -how is that not fair?[/b]

If the words were different from what they are now, it would not be God's word, but only man's word. Therefore, it could not be relied on as being the truth of God. But I believe the Holy Bible can be relied on as the word of God and true. Do you get it now?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the words were different from what they are now, it would not be God's word, but only man's word. Therefore, it could not be relied on as being the truth of God. But I believe the Holy Bible can be relied on as the word of God and true. Do you get it now?

If the words were different from what they are now, it would not be God's word, but only man's word.

how do you know it isn't "only man's word” if it was NOT different from what it is now?

But this is going a bit off-topic:

Are you ever going to get round to answering the question of this thread or are you just to scared of it?

Originally posted by humy

If the words were different from what they are now, it would not be God's word, but only man's word.

how do you know it isn't "only man's word” if it was NOT different from what it is now?

But this is going a bit off-topic:

Are you ever going to get round to answering the question of this thread or are you just to scared of it?

I have already answered it. You do not seem to understand the answer or else you just don't like it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already answered it. You do not seem to understand the answer or else you just don't like it.

Please highlight for me where you ACTUALLY answered it....

None of your responses have answered it as I have basically pointed out.
You just keep answering the same none existent question about “hypothetical lies” that was never asked by me or anyone else instead of answering my ACTUAL question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the words were different from what they are now, it would not be God's word, but only man's word. Therefore, it could not be relied on as being the truth of God. But I believe the Holy Bible can be relied on as the word of God and true. Do you get it now?

I think this DOES give a clear answer, it is just one that introduces a perspective that seems very strange and untenable, but is actually beyond rational analysis and therefore beyond rational criticism. The reliable truth is what the current Bible says, in the exact words that it uses, which are God's words. If there were ANY difference in the words, the book they were in would not be the Bible and could not be relied upon as truth. So any book that tells a different story is not the Bible. If there were no book containing the exact words the current Bible we have uses, that would mean god had chosen not to give us the Bible (as of yet.)

I interpret this as meaning that RJ sees the Bible is a mirror of reality, and the fact is that reality is what it is and cannot change even hypothetically no matter what is observed and said about it, so the Bible as the mirror cannot change and still be the Bible. So the "strange untenable idea" is that reality cannot change from what it is, and this is true not because a change would contradict the Bible, it is a brute fact.

So RJ is first and foremost a philosophical realist on the question. Carried to its logical extreme (which is not a compelling journey for RJ) it is "Timeless Block-Universe Determinism" with God in control. As detailed in the Bible, in a way that seems strange to some, God freely shares some of that control with us and has requirements on how we use it.

http://www.egodeath.com/blockuniversedeterminism.htm.

Well, so far no evidence-denying creationist like Rob or RJHinds has actually answered the central killer question posed for this thread and it looks like they will be too cowardly to do so.

In the case of RJHinds, his response is to answer a different question which basically is “hypothetically, if the Bible said lies then would you believe it?” which is neither the question I posed for this thread nor any question anyone else asked.

OK then, one last try but this time this is mainly for RJHinds although it would be nice if one of the others will answer it:

RJHinds or Rob etc:

here is basically the question again but I have modified it slightly it so you cannot mistakenly make out it is asking you if you would believe the Bible if it said lies:

purely hypothetically, IF the Bible ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH AND DID explicitly say that the Earth is millions of years old and DID explicitly say abiogenesis and evolution happened and and life and humans evolved by Darwinian evolution with common ancestor and DID explicitly say the Big Bang theory is correct, would you THEN accept the said scientific evidence for evolution and old-Earth etc as being valid evidence?

Note that the hypothetical scenario posed in this question above would be one where evolution etc IS true and so the Bible would NOT be telling lies in that hypothetical scenario.

Well?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If, hypothetically, the Holy Bible was full of lies, it would not be the word of God or the Holy Bible. It would just be a Bible like any other religious book.

Well done; you have answered your own hypothetical question (since you do not believe the Holy Bible is full of lies, but you are able to deduce the consequence of it hypothetically being full of lies).

Now answer Humy's hypothetical question.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Well done; you have answered your own hypothetical question (since you do not believe the Holy Bible is full of lies, but you are able to deduce the consequence of it hypothetically being full of lies).

Now answer Humy's hypothetical question.

You are not the boss of me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well done; you have answered your own hypothetical question (since you do not believe the Holy Bible is full of lies, but you are able to deduce the consequence of it hypothetically being full of lies).

Now answer Humy's hypothetical question.
You are not the boss of me.

Your witty response is tantamount to
(1) "I will not answer" or (2) "I cannot answer"

you think its (1)

we know its (2)

Originally posted by JS357
I think this DOES give a clear answer, it is just one that introduces a perspective that seems very strange and untenable, but is actually beyond rational analysis and therefore beyond rational criticism. The reliable truth is what the current Bible says, in the exact words that it uses, which are God's words. If there were ANY difference in the words, the boo ...[text shortened]... has requirements on how we use it.

http://www.egodeath.com/blockuniversedeterminism.htm.

Might raise some problems with the original texts in the original languages (even such as we have them)--in particular the very polysemous nature of classical Hebrew, and a text without specified vowels, punctuation, capitals or even sentence breaks... And if those who still read the classical Hebrew, with due recognition of those facts in a more open hermeneutic that might disagree (polysemously, of course) with the designated "authoritative" translation...well, then the designated translation that must be declared to trump the original...?

Well hasn't this been a plain display of a FAIL for the YEC christians so far.

RJHinds has been a child compared with every other poster who has been very well thought out and instructive.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well hasn't this been a plain display of a FAIL for the YEC christians so far.

RJHinds has been a child compared with every other poster who has been very well thought out and instructive.u

I used to be like RJ. I was told by my church that evolution was evil and mutually exclusive in relation to creationism. I was also instructed that the six days were six literal days, end of discussion or you were a heretic.

However, I then picked up a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. In it he revealed that many rabbi scholars wrote that they did not believe that the creation account was six literal days, but much longer. This was premodern science, so their conclusions were based soley on interpreting Hebrew and passed down traditions. Their findings seem to indicate that the original Hebrew was not being taken literally enough through such intepretations as the KJV.

Another angle I see Christians take is that it is not a literal story, or that the Bible is not inerrant. Again, most Christians are taught that the Bible is either 100% accurate or that it must all be untrue. Unfortunatly, the Bible only claims to be the inspired word of God and not inerrant. The interpretation is that if the Bible is the inspired word of God, then every word and punctuation must be placed their by God. Then again, I don't think the original Hebrew had puncuation. LOL. I would compare them to Muslims who seem to take the Quran and worship it as inerrant. To me, thier holy book quickly becomes an idol or sorts which prompts people to try and lob off your head if you so much as sneeze on it etc.


As for myself, I believe in creationism, and I believe that the universe is billions of years old. I think the truth is in all that mess above so it's a continual struggle to see if I can peice it altogether. Luckily, I don't view not knowing with 100% certaintly all the facts regarding our origins as being heretical and unchristian, rather, I just view it as being being human and truthful with myself. As for Biblical inerrancy, I am open to the premise that their may be some "errors", although, I would lean toward saying that the main points are spot on as are the main stories. Luckily, the Bible is very repeatitive in terms of its themes which solidify its core meaning. I don't view it as having any blatant errors that would lead to heretical thinking.