Rerun:
I said that the man was gathering sticks on a Sabbath.

Quote: › “And, he was told to do all his work in six days.”

Told? By whom? You don’t even know if that man knew about the laws? He was wandering about in the desert when Israelites found him and dragged him off to their leaders. Their leaders were then told by God to stone the man. A spectacle that is still found today in nations like Saudi Arabia.
Do you think stoning is a well balanced punishment for picking up sticks on a Sabbath?

But that is even besides the point. It’s about the fact that God’s laws seem to change drastically over time.

Quote: › “The spirit of the law is for all times and for all people.”

What does that mean ‘the spirit of the law?’ One time you get killed over it, and the next time it’s no problem at all! What is left of that ‘spirit?’ To me that is a complete 180 degree turn in law, from death penalty to nothing at all, not even a slap on the wrist.
Why did God first think that death was appropriate for such a crime, and some time later on no punishment at all was needed?
Why did God first forbid us the eat pork, and then later on changed His mind, and now obviously it is not important at all anymore?
How is that even possible?
Not even the spirit of the law is for all times and all people!

And what happened to the people that broke such laws, compared to the people that behave the same today?

Why did the people of those days need to obbey such laws, while we get away with a much milder set of laws?

Where they lesser people? The only difference between them and us is that we live in a different time.


You think evolution must be wrong as it conflicts with the Bible.
I think the Bible must be wrong as it conflicts with just about everything else, even my own feelings of justice and morality.
Before you can even attempt to prove to me the evolution theory is wrong, you need to convince me of the divine truth of the Bible, as the Bible is all the touchable evidence you have.

Quote: › For a perfectly righteous being, greed is a severe sin.

Where does greed enter this equation? From what I know of the story, none of the man's motives are mentioned nor even considered to be relevant. For all you and I know, the man may have needed those sticks to start his cooking fire for the day.

You cannot simply label the man's action of gathering wood as greed without actual evidence of his motives.

Quote: › For all you and I know, the man may have needed those sticks to start his cooking fire for the day.

That seems to be the most obvious reason to me too. Do we even know if this man knew about the laws? It seems the Israelites encountered the man in the desert.

Harrie,

Quote: › Told? By whom? You don’t even know if that man knew about the laws?

It is implied from the text that he was an Israelite. And he would have been in the congregation hen the law was read. So, he knew the law.

Quote: › Do you think stoning is a well balanced punishment for picking up sticks on a Sabbath?

See, you and Nator are missing it again. You are rejecting the explanation.

The man was violating the Sabbath, God's appointed rest day.

From Matthew Henry's commentary.

Quote: › The punishment of presumption, The sabbath-breaker stoned. Those are to be reckoned presumptuous sinners, who sin designedly against God's will and glory. Sins thus committed are exceedingly sinful. He that thus breaks the commandment reproaches the Lord. He also despises the word of the Lord. Presumptuous sinners despise it, thinking themselves too great, too good, and too wise, to be ruled by it. A particular instance of presumption in the sin of sabbath-breaking is related. The offence was gathering sticks on the sabbath day, to make a fire, whereas the people were to bake and seethe what they had occasion for, the day before, Ex 16:23. This was done as an affront both to the law and to the Lawgiver. God is jealous for the honour of his sabbaths, and will not hold him guiltless who profanes them, whatever men may do. God intended this punishment for a warning to all, to make conscience of keeping holy the sabbath. And we may be assured that no command was ever given for the punishment of sin, which, at the judgment day, shall not prove to have come from perfect love and justice. The right of God to a day of devotion to himself, will be disputed and denied only by such as listen to the pride and unbelief of their hearts, rather than to the teaching of the Spirit of truth and life. Wherein consists the difference between him who was detected gathering sticks in the wilderness on the day of God, and the man who turns his back upon the blessings of sabbath appointments, and the promises of sabbath mercies, to use his time, his cares, and his soul, in heaping up riches; and waste his hours, his property, and his strength in sinful pleasure? Wealth may come by the unhallowed effort, but it will not come alone; it will have its awful reward. Sinful pursuits lead to ruin. (Nu 15:37-41)

Quote: › It’s about the fact that God’s laws seem to change drastically over time.

No they don't.

The seventh day sabbath was God's precursor to the sabbath rest found in Christ.

Quote: › One time you get killed over it, and the next time it’s no problem at all!

You broke the sabbath in the OT, you get stoned.

You break the sabbath in the NT, you get hell.

There is still a punishment.

Read the book of Hebrews for a comparison between the OT laws and the NT laws.

Quote: › You think evolution must be wrong as it conflicts with the Bible.

It conflicts with observed reality also. Sorry Nator, it does.

Quote: › Before you can even attempt to prove to me the evolution theory is wrong, you need to convince me of the divine truth of the Bible, as the Bible is all the touchable evidence you have.

You have just as much a requirement of faith for evolution as you do the bible.

See, with evolution, you, Harrie, must go by what a scientist says.

With Christ, He makes Himself real to those who believe. You don't need anyone to tell you Christ is real, if you really want to know Him for other than knowledge's sake.

Quote: › See, you and Nator are missing it again. You are rejecting the explanation. The man was violating the Sabbath, God's appointed rest day.

I don't think I missed it nor the explanation. I don't recall who attributed the man's motives to greed, but that really is all I'm focused on here.

You don't know his motives. They are never mentioned. For all we know, he could have been getting wood to build a cooking fire so he could eat.

Quote: › It conflicts with observed reality also. Sorry Nator, it does.

In what way?

Evolutionary theory is a phenomenal explanatory model. It explains the observation that groups of plant and animal life change to meet the needs of the environment.

It explains the finds of a great many fossils.

It explains well enough that the medical and pharmaceutical industries base a great deal of their work on it.

Now, it may not fit your beliefs, but if you honestly look at observable reality, you cannot deny the explanatory power and fit of evolutionary theory.

Nator,

The man was violating the Sabbath, God's appointed rest day.

It doesn't matter if he was picking up sticks or plowing snow or building a boat. He violated a command that came directly from the mouth of God. He was an actual witness to God speaking from the cloud.

He knew what he was violating.

Quote: › You don't know his motives. They are never mentioned.

It is implied by the text that he disregarded the command of God. Greed or laziness or whatever it doesn't really matter. If he needed the wood for his family it would not have been an issue.

Quote: › It explains the observation that groups of plant and animal life change to meet the needs of the environment.

So does natural selection within created kinds. But you reject it because God is involved.

As a matter of fact, natural selection within created kinds offers a better explanation with more proof than macroevolution.

Quote: › but if you honestly look at observable reality,

I am. I see diversity from the Creator. We are to have dominion over the earth. Subdue it. Learn about it. Study and use it.

This diversity is one of the facets of a complex creator.

Quote: › you cannot deny the explanatory power and fit of evolutionary theory.

It could offer a good explanation if it didn't supplant God as Creator.

The way I observe the evolution of evolution, God's use of natural selection according to created kinds was exchanged with a way to dominate the masses through ignorance and suppression.

Kind of like what Romanism did to the church.

Man again ruined it.

Quote: › The man was violating the Sabbath, God's appointed rest day. It doesn't matter if he was picking up sticks or plowing snow or building a boat. He violated a command that came directly from the mouth of God. He was an actual witness to God speaking from the cloud. He knew what he was violating.

True, but earlier you were ascribing greed as a motive for his actions. There is nothing to support that.

I am not justifying his actions in any way, shape, or form. I am merely pointing out that the earlier assertion regarding his motives is actually an unknown and cannot simply be thrown out there.

Quote: › It is implied by the text that he disregarded the command of God. Greed or laziness or whatever it doesn't really matter. If he needed the wood for his family it would not have been an issue.

It is not implied by the text. It isn't even mentioned. I will grant that his motive may be irrelevant, but you cannot draw a conclusion about what that motivation might have been.

If the man had needed the wood for his family, it still would have been an issue, because according the law that was set down, there was no consideration of circumstances or motivation, but merely the action.

Quote: › So does natural selection within created kinds. But you reject it because God is involved. As a matter of fact, natural selection within created kinds offers a better explanation with more proof than macroevolution.

No. It does not. Those two ideas would be on a relatively equal playing field without new forms of evidence. Retroviral DNA markers are one such piece of evidence.

Quote: › I am. I see diversity from the Creator. We are to have dominion over the earth. Subdue it. Learn about it. Study and use it. This diversity is one of the facets of a complex creator.

If you look at the fossil record and genetics, you cannot reach the conclusion that evolutionary theory is false. You can, of course, reach a different interpretation of what it means, but not that it is false.

Quote: › It could offer a good explanation if it didn't supplant God as Creator.

There are theistic evolutionists out there who don't see that evolutionary theory displaces a creator. Those who find the idea most unpalatable are those most invested in a personal creator.

Quote: › The way I observe the evolution of evolution, God's use of natural selection according to created kinds was exchanged with a way to dominate the masses through ignorance and suppression. Kind of like what Romanism did to the church. Man again ruined it.

The observable evidence does not point to created kinds. It does not rule out creation entirely, but it does knock off the model of specifically created kinds.

Why do I never hear those most vehemently against evolution ever bringing up the evidences discovered by genetics? It appears to me the ones most attempting to dominate via ignorance and suppression are against evolution.

Quote: › You broke the sabbath in the OT, you get stoned. You break the sabbath in the NT, you get hell.

Rerun, have you ever set the thermostat of your central heating on a Sabbath?
If so, should you not go to hell? As that would be the today's equivalent of gathering sticks for a fire?
After all, you know the laws very well I assume?

So if I understand it correctly, every Mosaic law is still effective, but you will only be punished after you die, and not anymore while you are alive?

What happens if you break many Mosaic laws, but still belief in Christ?

Harrie,

Quote: › After all, you know the laws very well I assume?

Well enough. Christ is the Sabbath now. If you violate the Sabbath, reject Christ, you end up in hell. I have said this before, man is not bound by the Mosaic law anymore.

Quote: › So if I understand it correctly, every Mosaic law is still effective, but you will only be punished after you die, and not anymore while you are alive?

Only the moral law. The national law, no pork; and the ceremonial law, sacrifices; were done away with through Jesus Christ.

Quote: › What happens if you break many Mosaic laws, but still belief in Christ?

Ceremonial and national laws, nothing.

Moral law, you could very well be judged in the flesh, killed, get sick, so on.

Nator,

Quote: › I am merely pointing out that the earlier assertion regarding his motives is actually an unknown and cannot simply be thrown out there.

Biblically speaking, any violation of any law from God is due to selfishness, pride, or greed.

Quote: › Retroviral DNA markers are one such piece of evidence.

I've been reading that these markers, I assume you mean "junk" DNA, are actually used to aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome.

So, aside from the fact that similar creatures have similar ERV's, then these are not just leftovers from an earlier creature that we evolved from. They actually have a purpose.

Quote: › ‘Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome.’5 Conley, A.B., Piriyapongsa, J. and Jordan, I.K., Retroviral promoters in the human genome, Bioinformatics 24(14):1563–1567, 2008.

Am I correct so far?

Quote: › Why do I never hear those most vehemently against evolution ever bringing up the evidences discovered by genetics?

Perhaps even the geneticists are not fully aware of the happenings on this cellular level? To convey this to the everyday person sounds more far fetched than what you see on SyFy.

p.s. I don't like the new SciFi logo.

Quote: › Biblically speaking, any violation of any law from God is due to selfishness, pride, or greed.

Those are just a few motivations. The Bible, especially the OT, doesn't really spend a great deal of time going into motives, so it is really difficult to ascertain that information.

Quote: › I've been reading that these markers, I assume you mean "junk" DNA, are actually used to aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome. So, aside from the fact that similar creatures have similar ERV's, then these are not just leftovers from an earlier creature that we evolved from. They actually have a purpose.

Not at all what I meant. ERV markers are not "junk" DNA.

Retroviral markers show when and where viruses attached to hosts. Since the lifespan of viruses is very short and they mutate rapidly, it is easy to trace when a virus mutated to cross species barriers. We can also look at how the host adjusted to fight off the viral attack.

These markers can show quite clearly when a species evolved.

Quote: › Am I correct so far?

At least on that part, yes. But looking from the wrong angle.

Quote: › Perhaps even the geneticists are not fully aware of the happenings on this cellular level? To convey this to the everyday person sounds more far fetched than what you see on SyFy. p.s. I don't like the new SciFi logo.

I admit that this is far more difficult a concept to convey to the everyday person than the idea of a fossil record, but with some effort, we can understand it.

p.s. I haven't been very fond of many of their logos either.

Nator,

Quote: › ERV markers are not "junk" DNA.

My source echos this as well. Just using the everyday lingo.

Quote: › But looking from the wrong angle.

Which angle should I look at it from?

Quote: › Which angle should I look at it from?

From my previous reply:

Quote: › Retroviral markers show when and where viruses attached to hosts. Since the lifespan of viruses is very short and they mutate rapidly, it is easy to trace when a virus mutated to cross species barriers. We can also look at how the host adjusted to fight off the viral attack. These markers can show quite clearly when a species evolved.

The idea is not to look at ERV as a form of "junk" DNA, but rather to look at the location of the marker within the DNA along with the exact configuration of the marker. These will be the same across modern species where they have a common ancestor because in order for a virus to move from one host species to another requires a mutation of the virus of some sort. It either has to attack a different portion of the new host or it has to change so that it can attack the new host.

Where the markers are the same and in the same location across modern species is therefore indicative of a shared common ancestor.

Nator,

Quote: › Where the markers are the same and in the same location across modern species is therefore indicative of a shared common ancestor.

My source says these ERV's were not necessarily designed to be a contagion of sorts, but were designed to be used to communicate on a cellular level.

So, because there are similarities between species, these markers would be in similar areas. This doesn't have to mean there was a common ancestor, it could also indicate a common designer.