The Florida Senate's pre-K-through-12 education committee approved a bill Wednesday that protects teachers who include theories questioning evolution in their coverage of the much-debated topic.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > Creation/evolution
Bill Allowing Teachers to Question Evolution Advances
By
Katherine T. Phan
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Mar. 28 2008 06:06 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Comments
Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.
seedplanter,
What I am saying is aside from being a god or not, any person that was motivating others to repeal against the Roman Empire would no doubt cause issues, and it's in the romans best interest to nip in the butt sooner rather than later, this is why jesus was hardly the only person crucified or killed for motivating others to uprise against the empire.
"I am not saying he as an individual was a threat, but his new message, new way of thinking was radical and inspired new followers which in turn is a direct threat to the control the Roman Empire had. The last thing you want, as a leader of a a huge empire, is a some wild eyes rebel speaking out and getting people rilled and fired up at their unjust treatment and this is partially what jesus inspired."
Agent, do you have any historical evidence here or is this just the way you think the events may have transpired since they did in fact execute him and since he was after all known as the Messiah?
Pilate did confront Jesus about his claims of royalty in which he responded that his kingdom was not of this world. I don't believe that there really was any feeling of being threatened on the part of the Romans. His teachings were really not that revolutionary prior to his death and resurrection and at that it was in the aspect of his assumed authority, his unabashed revising of the Sanhedrin’s interpretations of the Torah, his miracles (which were attested to in his opposition’s writings – The Babylonian Talmud) and most importantly his direct claims of deity, which would have seemed quite ambiguous to the Romans (i.e. riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, claiming the title I AM THAT I AM, etc.). It wasn’t really until nutty Nero’s reign that Christianity as a religion and as representing certain ideas that were somehow suspicious to Nero that they became an apparent threat resulting in severe persecution. However, up until his resurrection I just don’t see Jesus as threat at all to the Roman Rulers. According to the Bible the concern was to satisfy the Jewish Sanhedrin who passed him on to Pilate as an instigator. Pilate didn’t seem to find any fault in him and apparently did not even want to handle the trial, until after enormous pressure was put on him. This would also explain why Roman Catholics were anti-Semitic for many years, some how blaming Christ’s death on them, when in reality the Bible lays the blame upon us all in the sense that it was all of our sins that he bore.
agentx when do you finally go and get your copy of "a case for a creator" written by Lee Strobel. This book is written for you. Go to amazon or to your trusted dealer and see what well knwon scientists say about evolution.
Man this theory has no chance to be taken seriously.
Now GO and get it.
agentorange
I don't care what any one has to say about the film. I would have to view it myself and draw my own conclusions. I might view it as long as I don't have to pay to see it. I don't know. It might serve my future purposes if I did see the film. I don't know yet what I will do.
star2,
Fox news aside, would you be more impressed if I gave the entire list of negative reviews by all critiques for 'Expelled' thus far? I am sure only a short hours of Google searching will return such results, I know LA Times and others were critical of it. I am not saying Fox news is the end all be all of reporting (it's not even close) but rather that even they, Fox News, a conservative leaning news channel, with a conservative leaning audience aer even harsh on such a film that one would think would appeal to their viewers.
agentorange
Re:and not even Fox News folks like 'expelled', ouch. -
Just because Roger Friedman of Fox News disliked the film doesn't mean anything. fox News hires all kinds of people of different beliefs. They hire liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicians, and independents. They hire Catholics, Protestants, other religious persuations, and no belief. They hire those who hold to evolution and those who don't. Roger Friedman speaks for himself not Fox News. Friedman could very well be of your persuation (evolutionist), and would view the film based on that bias. Maybe not. Neither one of us knows. I personally won't see the film because I disagree with ID. As you know quite well I am a YEC. I am not interested in any other view.
Get this, it turns out the folks that produced Expelled committed a violation of copy right infringement! Way to go - http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/will-the-public.html#comments-open
First Stein offers $$ for people (particularly schools to go see his film), then they were caught in expelling (how ironic) PZ Myers (a person who was interviewed in the film mind you) from open online registration iinvitation pre-screening at the Mall of America and now they're caught in illegally using copy righted material, ouch.
and not even Fox News folks like 'expelled', ouch. - http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/flunked-not-exp-1.html
He preached in his words, under his own authority.
This is the radical thing about it. This is what those men called blasphemy, this is what destroid theier authority based on tradition.
The Jewish rules allways related to some other rulers, just like in Catholic church today.
Putting earthly tradition above God himself.
Building up rules that people can not obey, instead of preaching freedom thrugh the Spirit.
His Cross made the difference, no rules needed to obey to achieve a cleared up relationship with God himself. Just to love God and believe in Him and throu him being filled up with the Holy Spirit to live a life according to the will of God.
Too "simple" to believe...even today.
Jesus did not revolute against the Roman Empire.
He said clearly to give Caesar what belongs to him. He called out to obey the leaders of the Land and to pray for them. This is even what his judge statet when he was to be centenced: this man is not guilty.
All he did was teaching against the jewish Rulers who did everything but obeying God and the Bible. They came up with theier own teachings but obeying theier own rules.
They cared about themselves, not about God.
If they did, they would have clearly seen that the predictions of the old testament are fullfilled by Jesus Christ and this is whats going on today in Jewish Religion.
They do not see the truth right before theier eyes.
So the threat of his teachings was for them and for the devil, not for any political system.
He was teachning love above all. He explanied that love is the essence of the 10 commandments. And he was teaching him being the son of God to free from rules and to life a new life filled up with the Holy Spirit.
star2, I agree. jesus as a radical teacher (compared with the jews) was not only a threat to the jewish control structure, but also to the control of the current Roman Empire. I am not saying he as an individual was a threat, but his new message, new way of thinking was radical and inspired new followers which in turn is a direct threat to the control the Roman Empire had. The last thing you want, as a leader of a a huge empire, is a some wild eyes rebel speaking out and getting people rilled and fired up at their unjust treatment and this is partially what jesus inspired. star, when you consider if and why they wanted to put jesus to death, at least consider the extra biblical sources alongside luke and NT.
prodriver,
Got the sound, but never the visual. RC Sproul is always good. A very logical, fact based person who has a knack for presenting reasoned approaches.
It´s an mp3 file and it takes a while to load.
So be patient, the link works.
It´s a "teaching lesson" with Dr. R.C. Sproul and worth waiting.
prodriver
I can't get anything to come up with the site you listed. Could you give me the name and/or date of the item so I can find it please.
Here are a lot of really clever people, dealing with a very tricky topic and I don´t try to ridicule you, I mean what I say.
So I appeal to your heads and minds and offer you something to listen to about truth and what truth has to do with Christianity and Evolution and Life itself:
http://media.ligonier.org/audio/rym20070410.mp3
God bless you
DARWINISM AND ATHEISM are both UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
ifeelfine72
What makes you think that some parts of the Bible are nothing more than an allegory? Jesus didn't view it as such. Neither did Paul and Peter.
Looking at most of Genesis as an allegory didn't happen until the Greek thoughts and philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were applied to interpreting the Holy Scriptures by Origen and Augustine and later the early Catholic Church Fathers.
ifeelfine72
Where in the Bible does God say that He approves of two men having sex with one another? or two women having sex with one another?
I can only find scripture that says that God is against it. He calls it sin and an abomination. See Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13
Seedplanter - I never said that WIlliam Wilburforce was a progressive liberal. I said that progressive Christians were mostly the ones that were for abolition. Fundamental, conservative Christians for the most part were in favor of slavery. Don't put words in my mouth.
As for your question: Why does the question of the immorality of homosexuality hinge upon the morality of other Christians? I don't understand what you mean, please elaborate.
As for the rest of your comments, you would do well to look at your own comments with an impartial eye.
Homosexuality and evolution are two "hot button" topics. And there are a lot of "Christians" here that claim you have to be against both to be a Christian and that just isn't the case. I claim Christ just like most of the folks that post here. If your concern is with the tenor of my comments, just read the posts of many folks that agree with you, they are every bit as confrontational - I've never called AgentOrange, AgentOrnery. He is probably the most temperate poster on this site and he says he's an atheist.
Star, this is not to argue against your well made points and Scriptural references, but there is a bit more involved here than just envy, although that played a part obviously. What I am asking Agent is why Pilate conferred with the Sanhedrin to sentence him to execution by way of the cross. While I do think that the Bible is the most credible source as to the historical account, setting personal beliefs aside I am not necessarily limiting him to that text. There are certain historical facts that we can ascertain that were relevant to the case. The Scriptures certainly cannot be thrown out even from a secular point of view, considering the multiple attestations in extra-Biblical sources that verify certain events, as well as internal evidence that speak to its historical validity and other extenuating circumstances. For what it is worth, Agent is welcome to even use his imagination if he thinks it will help identify certain historical events, such as why the Romans thought Jesus was a threat or that he was at least deemed worthy of capital punishment.
agentorange
Jesus was not a threat to the Roman Empire. He was a threat to the religious establishment of His people.
Neither Herod nor Pilate wanted to put Jesus to death because they found no fault in Him (Luke 23:4,15,22). Herod even was happy to see Jesus because he heard a lot about Him and was hoping that He would do some miracle (Luke 23:8) It was the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes that wanted Him crucified (Luke 22:66). Why? They claimed that it was because Jesus said that He was the Son of God (Luke 22:70-71). But that wasn't the real reason. The real reason was because they were envious of Him (Matt 27:18).
Jesus is their judge. They each will give an account to God for their actions just like you, me and everyone else.
AgentOrnery,
(Me) “why do you think He was crucified?”
AO: “B/c he was a genuine threat to the Roman Empire and that is regardless if he was the son of man or not. Crucifixions were reserved for the most hardened criminals or those that threatened the Empire greatest. From an Imperialists view, the last thing you’d want is people in the far corners of your empire standing up and protesting against being ruled by foreigners.”
Why was He considered a threat? And to whom? There were a lot of itinerant preachers. Rabbis with disciples were not uncommon.
ifeelfine72, It may be that you just do not recall or recognize moments which you have in fact come across as God’s moderator. I do not claim to have the power to know people’s motivations. Nevertheless the insinuations resounded loud and clear and I think not only to myself. This moment of contention has been heating up every since I made mention the name William Wilberforce whom you so expertly dubbed as a progressive liberal (WRONG!). While I admit to have made comments that were rather pointed, sometimes rightly so, other times I could have done better. In the various discussion boards we all engage in debate. We all can use a large dose of God’s grace. That being said, it is not my duty to penalize truth for the method it chooses to confront me. When found guilty it is not for me to judge the jury by the halitosis emanating due to the lack of dental hygiene, offensive though it may be. This type of dancing around seems to occur quite regularly on your part. For example, where did I mention evolution in my post? I was talking about Biblical inerrancy, inspiration and an allegorical interpretation of the Bible as a whole. A similar standoff was made when homosexuality was confronted. Why does the question of the immorality of homosexuality hinge upon the morality of other Christians?
A judge, I have never meant to be nor have so much as ever hinted to here on the post. Guilty of self-righteousness that plagues the human soul as long as it stretches forth its hand toward God and ever seeking the riddance of such depravation I fear is my plight as being left-over from the curse of the fall. At the same time, assertiveness is not a synonym for self-righteousness or hypocrisy for that matter.
After reading agentorange and ifeelfine comments it is very evident that the god of this world (satan) has so blinded them that they cannot see the truth and will not listen to truth. They are of this world which is passing away not evolving and they need to turn their attention to The Word of God, for there is no salvation in any other name which they might be saved.
ifeelfine72
Re:Are you familiar with the word "allegory?"
What makes you think that certain accountings in the Word of God are only allegories and not the way it actually was?
Star,
“Why don't you accept God's definition of marriage, that it is to be between one man and one woman?”
Star, are you serious? I am not advocating homosexuality in the lightest, but the accounts of Solomon and his 300+ concubines make the idea of single partnership monogamy as you put forth not quite so. Why can one of the prophets have such a large harem? Isn’t this in fact contradictory or as ifeelfine72 points out, a case for hypocrisy?
On a side note, I don't recall ifeelfine questioning the biblical word on marriage, but rather that parts of it are allegorical and not literal.
Seed,
“why do you think He was crucified?”
B/c he was a genuine threat to the Roman Empire and that is regardless if he was the son of man or not. Crusifictions were reserved for the most hardened criminals or those that threatended the Empire greatest. From an Imperialists view, the last thing you’d want is people in the far corners of your empire standing up and protesting against being ruled by foreigners.
Seedplanter - I don't think I've ever projected myself as God's moderator. I've certainly pointed out hypocricy and you're right, I've certainly made comments that haven't gone over well. But read your own posts - you do the exact same thing and think nothing of it. I do my best but hate to the see the little guy picked on - especially by folks that think they've got the market cornered on what God really meant and what God really does. And especially when the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of evolution that by stating it isn't true, it starts to sound like you are calling God a liar.
Returning to the question of the proposed law, I do hope everybody appreciates the sophistry of its declaration that “it does not "promote any religious position." That’s like saying a course that teaches Nazi theories doesn’t promote racism or anti-Semitism. Of course the purpose is to promote biblical literalism, as many of the commentaries posted here prove.
As to that: “Rashi, the greatest Jewish commentator of all times, taught that purpose of Scripture was not to give a strict chronology of Creation; while no less an authority than Maimonides declared: ‘The account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, . . . , intended to be in all parts literal.’”
Or as the late Chief Rabbi of Great Britain (Dr. J. H. Hertz) put it, “Let anyone disturbed by the fact that Scripture does not include the latest scientific doctrine, try to imagine such information provided in a Biblical chapter”: Monera begat Amoeba, Amoeba begat Synamoeba, . . . , Tailed Apes begat Man-like Apes, Man-like Apes begat Ape-like Men, Ape-like Men begat Men. - Hardly inspiring or even comprehensible to the Israelites fleeing Egypt.
Or, as Gallileo put it: the Bible was written to tell us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.
Buy hey, what do I know, my people merely wrote the book!
What straw-man argument?
How is it that you believe in Scriptural inerrancy and inspiration, right down to the resurrection while maintaining that the Bible is allegorical? I think that it is common sense to take the things literally that was intended to be taken literally. I think that certain things are obviously intended to be taken literally, i.e. the eye witnesses of the resurrection; that the resurrection was not a mythological adaptation to fit some kind of a non-Hebrew paganism tradition. On the other hand, the sword coming out of Jesus' mouth in Rev. does not seem to be a literal sword, at least in the same sense that we would consider it to be. It is likely to refer to the power that emanates from the very words of Christ. Another example would be the multiple references to the heart. This does not mean the cardiovascular system, but rather the central part of the human soul.
A side note: when you come on to the post projecting yourself as though you are God’s moderator, while making ill conceived comments and presumptuous accusations yourself, it doesn’t exactly earn you any points. Please don’t take it as a personal attack. This is something that I have bitten my tongue over several times. You just seem to enjoy pointing out hypocrisies and the like when it doesn’t suite your fancy, regardless of whether the person is correct in the matter.
Seedplanter: I've been honest in saying that I don't have all the answers either, none of us do - if we did, there probably wouldn't be the 3000+ denominations of Christian churches. I do believe that the truth of the scripture is inerrent. And yes, I do believe in the Christ's miracles - including the resurection. The overwhelming majority of Christian denominations believe in the literal resurrection and I am one of them. If your next question is why - the only answer I can provide is "faith."
Star2
Why do you presume to speak for Christ?
Why didn't you understand the first dozen times I said it that I don't take the Bible literally?
Are you familiar with the word "allegory?"
Your either / or question doesn't make sense. I do believe the Bible was inspired by God. I've said that lots of times. You have yet to provide any scripture that says the Bible is to be taken literally. You just shout accusations or throw up strawmen. Stop that, please.
“You apparently understand nothing then.”
Coming from someone who does not seem to know what he thinks about Scripture should probably be considered a compliment. All jesting aside, let’s get down to what we do know or at least what we think we know. I will be the first of the two of us to put out in front that I admit I do not know everything nor do I lay claim to spiritual perfection.
That being said, I assume that since you do assert the inspiration of Scripture (that it is God breathed), that you also assume the inerrancy of Scripture. Is this correct? Do you in fact believe in miracles, including the resurrection? I asked this before but I lost the article.
ifeelfine72
Re:I believe every word of the Bible was inspired by God.
Then why don't you accept God's account of creation, that God spoke the worlds into existance over a very very short period of time instead of having it evolve over billions of years through random chance?
Why don't you accept God's definition of marriage, that it is to be between one man and one woman?
Why don't you accept that God says homosexuality is a sin, and all who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God?
Either you don't believe that God inspired the Word of God or you believe that God is a liar.
Seedplanter: You apparently understand nothing then. I am not a part of the emergent church. I belong to a 150+ year old United Methodist Church. I don't wrestle with the credibility of scripture at all - I believe every word of the Bible was inspired by God.
Both robes (each with symbolic significance) were used to mock Jesus and were placed upon Him at different times (one before a crown of thorns and the other sometime after). In addition, when comparing Matthew 27:27-30 and John 19:1-3, one will find differences in how Jesus was treated when wearing each robe.
“I guess I kind of feel sorry for you that your faith is so weak that you need the Bible to be literal in order to maintain your Christianity.”
To consider the Synoptic Gospels as historically reliable, is no sign of weakness nor does it imply a need for pity for those who take it seriously.
May I ask who you think Jesus to be? A follow up question would be, why do you think He was crucified?
I understand that you are of the emergent church and wrestle with the credibility of Scripture as being inspired by God. I also understand that the emergent church has embraced postmodernism which asserts it is futile to even try to know anything. Coming from a group that claims to be Christ’s church while denying the fundamental truth that there is such a thing as truth is quite a philosophical quandary, considering Christ assumed Himself to be truth personified.
While postmodernism has in fact given scholars some important facets to the study of history, it does not have the power to destroy history itself. History is still a science, not a religion in itself. While there are numerous interpretations within literature including history, it can not discount sound historical events. Whatever school you said you went to that is responsible for demolishing your confidence in history would have shut down long ago if they really thought history is irrelevant and that nothing can truly be known. While it may be that one can never be 100% certain of any historical record, that does not diminish the credibility of events or the relative certainty of specific records.
Seedplanter - In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus said that he would be coming back within a generation. He hasn't returned yet - so obviously there is a literal contradiction. It's not illogical at all. Look up the verses.
You keep acting like everytime I say I don't take the Bible literally, that I am not a Christian. I have faith. I guess I kind of feel sorry for you that your faith is so weak that you need the Bible to be literal in order to maintain your Christianity. If that's not it then what? What are you so afraid of?
ifeelfine, I must say, I don't feel so fine.
"...clearly the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. If it was, according to scripture, Jesus would have returned 1900 years ago but He obviously didn't."
This is the most illogical comment that I have read of yours on the post. You really don't want to be taken seriously do you? I suppose that when Jesus took upon himself the role of the Messiah and proclaimed God's kingdom is at hand, eventually culminating his death that this too was not literal history. I suppose that when Jesus' brother was killed for proclaiming the gospel of Jesus that he did not mean to be taken literally (see Josephus for the details). I suppose that when Nero used the heads of Christians to light his garden, that they too did not take Scripture literally, they were just ‘misunderstood’.
Oh, I know that there are members of the Jesus Seminar that are naturalists and even atheists for all practical purposes and some even admit to as much. I also know that a good amount of the atheists in Europe still claim to be Christians and that many of them ironically believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Such pandering to the person of Jesus while divorcing Him from his history is intellectual suicide. You only deceive yourself.
“How shall we escape so great a salvation?”
so i guess sooner or later conservative teachers will want to tackle astronomy classes, maybe rewrite a few roman history classes, and oh! you know what.. let's just exchange all high school english poetry with epistles.. infact, lets just lay insult to all of the doctorates of education all over this country's universities and let them know that their discoveries and studies mean religious-based bills will soon take over one day.
AgentOrangex - Star is what I like to call a hypocrite. She (and others) try to justify calling scarlet and purple the same color or say that perhaps they were the same color but from the perspective of two different people - in any case, clearly the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. If it was, according to scripture, Jesus would have returned 1900 years ago but He obviously didn't.
"Oh, the foolish thoughts of ignorant men! "
ya, the foolish men that decided 400 years after the fact to remove 14 books. You got to ask your self star, if they removed it and had good cause to do so as they thought such parts were not leigt, one must as least partionally view the rest with a jaded eye. instead, for you it's all 100% perfect and always was, which makes no sense in light of that much of it being removed.
Oh, the foolish thoughts of ignorant men!
Star2,
“If you cut out of your Bible everything you say God is wrong in how much of the Bible would you have left?”
Star, if it’s ALL truth and always was, why were 14 books removed from the bible by MEN at the council of Nicea? Star, to consider your holy book, as if it were entirely without a single error in any regard while still being penned, edited, and modified by FALIABLE MEN over the millennia is a gross illogical failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
The men had no problem throwing out 14 books from the OT and NT together, so from the very earliest beginnings of christianity the bible has been edited to mans fitting, think about it. One can read the verse of where ‘god breaths life (perhaps the spirit) into man’ as a the part in humanities progression from its evolutionary ancestors. It’s written god made man from dust/dirt, well symbolically one could read this as meaning that the most elemental atoms compose stars and the universe ultimately culminated into our being.
He's not gutting the bible of what it's worth, rather he like other appologetics realize that ultimately, inspired by god or not, men wrote it, edited it, revised it and to a degree, even a small degree it wil have some errors. But these errors in no way remove the underlying messages of Jesus and the religion.
Star: You are being obtuse. When did I say "God is wrong?" What I said in essence is that your interpretation is wrong. I didn't call God a liar. I said I don't take the Bible literally. The Bible is not a big Book of facts like an almanac it is a Book of spiritual truth.
Just as an aside, you call God a liar everytime you deny the facts of evolution. Even if you interpret the facts a different way - you still deny some very basic facts. You have yet to say anything about ERV's. I've noticed you just let that drop. When are you going to start becoming an honest Christian?
SweetBeloved: Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Scarlet is red but on the PMS scale (a color chart) it leans more towards the orange. Purple runs closer to blue on the PMS scale. As an aside, it just shows that you cannot take the Bible literally as those are two distinctly different colors. For what it's worth, you can't claim inerrency in the Bible if you take it literally and this is errent as those two colors are not the same.
I believe in the Bible, I'm a Christian - I just don't think you can take the Bible literally. I'm sure that the robe Jesus wore was probably either red or purple or somewhere in between - I'm not a skeptic with regards to that happening - just with the literal interpretation of the Bible.
ifeelfine72
If you cut out of your Bible everything you say God is wrong in how much of the Bible would you have left? Why don't you accept the Bible as truth like Jesus says it is and allow God to help you understand it?
ifeelfine72
Jesus was praying to His Father and made the following statement and request: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17)
Jesus made the following statements to His disciples:
"But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you."(John 14:26)
""Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himsel; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." (John 16:13)
Jesus said that the Word of God is truth and I accept that by faith. There is a lot of it I don't understand but I depend on God to teach me what it mean through the Holy Ghost.
I thought it may be of interest to some about a competition Answers In Genesis is running concerning expelled. The five largest groups that go to see it will each win $1000 (no idea what that is in£'s), check News To Note 29/3, on their site. I'm glad to see that the supporters of this movie have such integrity. Payola comes to the movies... I
Steve
My thought before doing some extra research is that this robe was interwoven or had an intricate pattern containing both colors red and purple.
ifeelfine72,
Re: your question concerning the color of the robe that was put on JESUS:
Matthew says the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2).
Skeptics have no solid ground on which to stand when they disregard common sense and create biblical contradictions that do not exist.
One person may consider the color teal to be more green and another may call it blue. The same way people consider the color magenta to be red and others consider it purple. Also consider that when some shades of deep red fabric, when faded, would have magenta or purplish tones as with the worn out scarf/robe the soldiers put on JESUS (please see below).
According to Greek bible scholars there were various shades of purple and scarlet in the first century and it was not easy to distinguish the colors or tints. In fact, the ancients (especially the Romans) used the term purple when speaking of various shades of red. Consequently, these different colors sometimes would be called by the same name.
A scarlet robe (clamuda kokkinhn). A kind of short cloak worn by soldiers, military officers, magistrates, kings, emperors, a soldier's sagum or scarf. Carr (Cambridge Gk. Test.) suggests that it may have been a worn-out scarf of Pilate's. The scarlet colour (kokkinhn) was a dye derived from the female insect (kermeß) which gathered on the ilex coccifera found in Palestine. These dried clusters of insects look like berries and form the famous dye. The word occurs in Plutarch, Epictetus, Herodas, and late papyri besides the Septuagint and New Testament. Mark (Mark 15:17) has "purple" (porpuran). There are various shades of purple and scarlet and it is not easy to distinguish these colours or tints. The manuscripts vary here between "stripped" (ekdusanteß) and "clothed" (endusanteß). He had been stripped for the scourging. If "clothed" is correct, the soldiers added the scarlet (purple) mantle. Herodotus (iii. 139) relates that Darius richly rewarded a Samian exile for a rare scarlet robe which he obtained from him. This scarlet mantle on Jesus was mock imitation of the royal purple.
source: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=mt&chapter=027&verse=028&next=029&prev=027
Hope that helps. If you have any more questions regarding so-called discrepancies of the INERRANT WORD OF GOD please let me know. I'll do the best I can to answer. It would also help not being so seemingly eager to find fault with GOD and HIS WORD.
(I flagged myself to edit)
"Academic Freedom Act"
Its about time. The only way to be able to get to the bottom of whether or not evolution is truly viable is to open the discussion forum. Until Neo-Darwinism is proven one way or the other it will always be open to debate and ridicule. Naturalists that are afraid of criticisms of their sacred cow have held back the progress of science just as much as creationists who dismiss it out of hand.
Star: I am blind to the truth? Oh, ok, thanks. Star said it, it must be true. You still haven't cited any verse in the Bible that says it's to be taken literally. Sounds like someone else might be blind to the truth.
agentorange
correction 'telling' should read 'explaining to'
agentorange
I don't trust anything any evolutionist says. You all are deluded and highly dishonest. I am not much interested in a blind man telling me what I see.
The evolutionist PZ Myers is interviewed Expelled and thanked for his contribution in the closing titles. However on going to see a preview for which he had applied for and got a ticket (as everybody else had to) he was " expelled" from the cinema and not allowed to see it. Lets get this right a movie about people being "expelled" for their questioning views, expells from a viewing a person who not only has applied and got the ticket to be there but disagrees wih the premise of the movie OH!! The beautiful irony of it all. I should mention that his friend Richard Dawkins who he was with was allowed in to see it. Don't usually leave links but try this one to get PZ Myers take on it.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2384,EXPELLED,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula
Steve
Star,
"I am sorry, I just can't buy into your falsehoods and half-truths and empty ramblings"
Well don't take my word for it star, read and research all the articles I put up which address Wells'book 'Icons of Evolution' (which you so readily trumpet) and afterwards come to an objective conclusion. you want epristomolgocial 'knowledge' or 'truth', well here's your chance. Read it all and find for yourself what Wells left out, neglected to mention and distorted. If you're interested, I put up more recent vids on Evolution from my youtube channel. It's actually a good lecture (9 parts )offered by HHMI featuring Ken Miller called 'evolution: fossils, genes, and mouse traps'. Also one on reconciling evolution with religion.
Evolution Fossils, Genes and Mousetraps 1-9
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
Discussion on reconciling evolution and religion 1-8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyjNKreIRNQ&watch_response
agentorange
I am sorry, I just can't buy into your falsehoods and half-truths and empty ramblings.
ifeelfine72
You are blind to truth.
I really think this bill is a fair compromise, if we can't teach ID, at least give people the ability to question Macro-Evolution.
1) Star, we can study life as it changes over time without knowing how it started, quit with the logical fallacy. Not even IDiots use this horrid logic, so this should tell you something.
2) The trees buried and petrified is within SEDIMENTARY strata layers and not igneous or morphic rock layers (which is the result of lava flow, think Hawaiian islands). Sedimentary layers are laid down relatively speaking faster than igneous rock is built up. If you find trees that are buried under sandstone sedimentary layers as impressive, boy do I have some land to sell you.
“Also,I would tell them that it doesn't take millions of years to form coal and oil”
Naturally it does. We can chemically create pearls and diamonds too, but their chemical composition isn’t exactly like those that are built naturally as they aren’t as pristine as the process is different.
“ I would teach and show them that dinosaurs were not wiped out millions of years ago but that they were contemporary with man”
K-T boundary star, look it up. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93T_boundary
“Man has found coal that had bones in it.” Do cite this one, I’d like to hear the reputable source on this one.
Google ‘moon butterfly evolution’ and ‘observed speciation’. Micro evolution is simply the allelic frequency changes within a local group population of a species. (blue eyes, brown eyes, hazel eyes, green eyes). Macro-evolution is defined as a SPECIATION, in which the original species population is genetically isolated and can’t breed or breeds with difficulty with its former ancestral species. And this we do have evidence for both direct observation in labs (stickleback evolution) and indirect (fossils) with new orders of genus and families changing.
star2,
Regarding your points from ARN (www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm) which takes its points directly from Wells’ Book ‘Icons of Evolution’, I would critique it, but others already have. Have a look for yourself, read up on the research and data Wells intentionally neglected to mention in his book ‘Icons’. Or just Google ‘icons of obfuscation’
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html
www.talkdesign.org/cs/icon_of_obfuscation
www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/icon.cr.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/ (National Center for Science Education)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution ( go to the bottom where it reads ‘Critical of 'Icons of Evolution')
and for good measure (since I know others want some evidence)
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
evidence for common ancestry erv
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
evidence for common ancestry Human chromosome 2 fusion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
Star: I accept all those accounts too with the same caveates as Jesus (just not literally - and actually Jeusus never said marriage only between one man and one woman) but where does it say that Jesus accepted those accounts literally? It doesn't.
likeadove
A poster got offended by some things I said about the Catholic Church so he flagged everything. I was only responding to some things he said to me so since he wouldn't let me answer I flagged his stuff that he directed to me.
ifeelfine72
Jesus accepted the creation account and the age of the earth when he stated that God created from the beginning male and female. Do you?
Jesus accepted the definition of marriage, that it is to be between a male and a female. Do you?
Jesus accepted all the laws of Moses. Do you?
Jesus accept the story of Noah, the Ark and the flood. Do you?
Jesus accepted the account of God's judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you?
Star: You said "You deny the Word of God with your humanistic worldview that promotes the wisdom of man instead of the wisdom of God."
That sounds like you're saying I'm not a Christian. But fine. I don't deny the teaching of the OT. I've said this many times and you just don't seem to understand: I don't take every word in the Bible literally - you can't. It's not possible. Here's a test for you, what color robe was Jesus wearing right before they crucified him?
ifeelfine72
Jesus accepted as Truth the entire Old Testament. You don't. How can you continue to follow Jesus when you just don't see eye to eye with Him on what the Old Testament teaches?
I don't know what Jesus you are following but it is obviously not the Jesus revealed in the Word of God.
ifeelfine72
I didn't say that you were not a Christian. But what you believe sure would make a fellow Christian wonder. Go back and reread what I wrote.
ifeelfine72
You know nothing about which you talk about. The arguments that agentorange gives and others are nothing more than empty talk and twisted arguments filled with half truths.
You deny the Word of God with your humanistic worldview that promotes the wisdom of man instead of the wisdom of God. I don't see how you can continue to follow Jesus who says that the Word of God is Truth and yet a lot of what you believe goes contrary to God's Word, the Truth. The Word of God tells us how God created everything yet you say He is wrong and you replace it with the theories of godless men who claim otherwise and who have no proof for what they say. You say God is wrong when He says homosexuality is a sin and who knows what other behaviors He calls sin that you disagree with. Then you say that God and Jesus have their priorities wrong because they didn't stand up to slavery. There are other issues that you have brought up that I can't remember that you say that the Word of God has wrong.
Why continue to follow Jesus if He is so wrong in everything? If He is wrong in all the above issues then how do you know that He isn't wrong in everything else?
If you don't have faith in all of God's Word whether you understand it or not, then how can you have faith in any of it? And what you do place your faith in, how do you know that it is right? After all there is so much in God's Word that is not true according to you. How do you know what is true?
You are a blind man my dear friend. You can't see truth because you have been blinded by Satan. You cannot discern truth from error and you lead people astray.
Why don't you give what you believe over to Jesus and let Him transform your worldview to be in conformity to His Word so that you will know what the good, perfect and acceptable will of God is? (Romans 12:2) Then you will be able to discern truth from error and will be able to minister the love of God to people in truth.
Star - I have to say at this point that you are willfully ignorant. I mean no disrespect with that but it is clearly the case. AgentOrange and others have given you evidence to refute everyone one of those points and yet you continue to trot out the same worn out arguments. You are being very intellectually dishonest Star and at this point I have to question your motives.
If I were a high school biology teacher and was allowed to tell the students about alternative explanations to evolution, some of what I would tell my students first would be as follows:
1) Before one can postulate how life changed over time one has to describe how it got started to begin with. Abiogenesists have no answer. They cannot explain how life came into being; how the inanimate became animate. They assume that life started out as a protozoam, and from that single cell it developed into the complex life forms we see today. There is no evidence to support this claim.
2) I would teach the students evolution cannot explain the fossil records. For example, man has found petrified trees that were tall enough to go thru all the stratas. Also,I would tell them that it doesn't take millions of years to form coal and oil. Man has found coal that had bones in it. Also, I would teach and show them that dinosaurs were not wiped out millions of years ago but that they were contemporary with man. I would show them the archaeological evidence for that.
3) I would explain to the students that macroevolution (one animal becoming a different animal) has never been observed either in the lab or in nature. Examples that evolutionists give are only evidences of genetic variations within a species (microevolution).
4) I would explain to the students that we can not be certain as to the age of the earth or anything connected to the earth. I would explain that radiometric dating techniques are not realiable. There are numerous papers that have been published in secular peer reviewed publications that illustrate this fact and I would bring out what those findings were.
5) I would point out that there are many false teachings in the their textbook that evolutionists have known to be false for many many years but are still mentioning them as truth. Some of them are
(Taken from www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm)
The Miller-Urey Experiment, Darwin's Tree of Life, Homology in Vertebrate Limbs,Haeckel's Embryos,Archaeopteryx - The Missing Link, Peppered Moths, Darwin's Finches.
These are some of the things that I would mention. I would teach them what the other theories are that explain the origin of life, its development, the fossil records, and etc. I would also point out the problems these other theories have as well.
MaxOut - Back to quote mining again? At least if you're going to quote mine, cite them from papers published in say the last 10-20 years rather than 30-50 years ago.
I believe that students should be aware that the very evidence in the fossil record, which the Theory of Evolution would predict to be there, is simply missing. A strange affair this, that something claiming to be a Theory, as apposed to being classified as a working hypothesis, is still in search of physical evidence to support its conclusions. HB1483 would allow some intellectual honesty in the classrooms regarding the FAITH system of Evolution, as it currently stands.
'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written.'
Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA), 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67, 1977, p. 396.
‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.’
Dr T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in ‘The Fresno Bee’, August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title page.
MaxOut, you should know that Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what we see in the fossil record. It would be dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Hopefully this bill will pass and allow the glaring shortcomings of the Theory of Evolution to be discussed in the classroom, instead of being censored outright.
‘Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record.’
David B. Kitts, Ph.D. (zoology), (School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of the History of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA) ‘Paleontology and evolutionary theory’. Evolution, vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.