> snip...
> I absolutely disagree with you here, Dario. The observational
> evidence of those standing there would require that Laz arose.
> Those who had wrapped his body would know that he was cold, clamy,
> eyes non-responsive and having some rigor mortis. The stench of the
> tomb would confirm the death. Then the observation that Lazarus
> walked out of the grave would have to be considered proof that he
> arose.
> snip...
I was referring before Lazarus came out walking. His sister pleaded
with Jesus to not remove the stone because it has been four days since
he died. Then is when Jesus tells her 'Did I not told you that if you
believe you will see the glory of God?'
Anybody can accept a miracle after they see it. It is before that it is
impossible to believe. Like Peter walking on water. And my thrust here
is that observational data not always lead us to true conclusions.
> >
> >> First, it is a fact that NOWHERE can one find a statement in
> >> Scripture that says
> >>
> >> 'Animals give rise to animals after their kind.'
> >>
> >> or 'Animals begat animals after their kind.'
> >
> >By the same token you can't find one that says they didn't. If one
> >is going to engage in textual criticism, then one must apply the
> > rules evenly.
>
> That is irrelevant. I don't think the Bible teaches against
> evolution, you do. Please prove that your belief about what the Bible
> is true. I have offered my evidence (the lack of a statement ruling
> evolution out) you haven't provided anything except your belief that
> the Bible teaches against evolution. What is your evidence for your
> belief?
>
Answer below...
> >
> >> By this I mean a statement with 'animals' as the subject and 'animals' as
> >> the object. Because of this lack, people who read into the Bible the claim
> >> that the Bible teaches fixity of form are quite mistaken. I have never had
> >> anyone show me a sentence like that above. You can prove me wrong by simply
> >> showing me the Scriptural statement with 'animals' as subject and object.
> >
> >What do you understand by 'after its kind' ?
>
> I understand it to mean 'of various kinds'.
But the hebrew word translated kind means 'sort i.e: species'. I don't
know how more preciese you want. 'Let the earth produce living
creatures sorted by species: livestock, creatures that move along the
ground, and wild animals, each sorted by its species.' Gen 1:24a -My
paraphrase
And after this event came the creation of man. In other words no more
animal species were produced by the earth after the fifth day of
creation.
Your position on a 'Animals begat animals after their kind.' statement
is like saying since The Bible doesn't explicity forbid engaging in
erotic arousal with an intern, then is ok. I mean it must say 'Thou
shalt not engage in inappropiate relationships with 21 year old
interns'. It really isn't a serious proposition.
> If I send you to the store to get vegetables 'after their kind' you
> don't understand me to have spoken about the reproductive capacities
> of vegetables. You know I want an assortment. If God creates or the
> land produces animals 'after their kind' why do we insist on
> understanding this different than the above?
>
But in this scenario I understand that you want completed developed
veggies. I mean what good is to bring a corn husk without kernels?
(Unless of course you want to make a pipe :->) Or an artichoke heart
without the artichokes leaves?
I insist that when Genesis says that God made 'livestock according to
their kinds' it means that the bovines were bovines, equines were
equines and porcines were porcines. No in between mix. As I stated
before the hebrew word meaning is something like 'sorted order by
species'.
Now, before a frog can become a dog and then a cow and then an ape and
then a human we talking crossing species. This is contrary to the
Biblical narrative of Genesis. There isn't room in here to insert your
postulation.
And moreover, God Himself creates man out of dirt. He doesn't just let
the evolutionary path continue until an humanlike ape becomes a man and
then He intervenes and gives Adam a soul.
>
> >> Who brought forth the grass? The EARTH did--at God's command. God was not
> >> the subject ofthe above sentence so you can't say that God directly created
> >> the grass, He INDIRECTLY created the grass.
The earth have all of the ingredients to produce plant life. It didn't
need any more intervention from the Creator at this point other than an
order to do what it was designed to do.
>
> So do you accept every translation including the Jehovah Witness
> translation of John 1:1 "In the Beginning was the word and the word
> was with God and the word was a God."? Their scholars claim to be
> trained also.
>
I can claim to be trained but am I? That is the real question. I have
read in this list many questioning credentials of some authors. The
author claims certain scholarship and degrees but some in here have
questioned them. So a claim isn't a truth, is it?
Besides, in a simple reading of the greek documents of Johns' gospel,
anybody can cleary see that the insertion of the 'a' between 'was' and
'God' in the JW translation is an arbitrary action.
>
> This is a red herring. English requires vowels, Hebrews didn't seem
> to use them much.
>
But you are the one claiming that the insertion of KJ translators are
the reason english speaking peoples are deceived in this evolution
dilemma. I'm merely stating that many insertions were made because of
the difference in the languages.
Which could lead to another debate. What is a better translation: a
transliteration where one places a word after another just like the
original document witout regards to grammar or a translation where the
ideas are placed in a manner that is understandable for the reader.
>
> Yes, and that is why I believe that God was directly involved in the
> creation of man. Man is a miraculous creation AND a product of
> evolution see my web page article Theory for Creationists.
I have been to your site several times and it is impossible to reconcile
your propositions and theories with clean and solid biblical
hermeneutics. I have told you this before.
But this last point doesn't prevent me from reading and understanding
what you are saying.
However, I did notice that you excepted and never answered the spot
where I wrote how Genesis details God creating man Himself, how He made
Adam a living soul and how God placed this exact human He had been
working with in a garden with fruit trees planted by God.
It isn't that The Bible shows no evolution took place, it is evolution
apologists who ignore Biblical passages describing no evolution taking
place.
And to the question what came first the apple or the tree Genesis gives
the answer: the tree and it was planted by God Himself (Gen. 2:8-9)
>
> Now why don't you go find me that statement that says "Animals can
> only give birth to animals exactly like them"
>
This was answered above.
Will you please find a Biblical statement where it says that 'God made
man from a pre-existing ape'.
Best Regards,
Dario