Quote: › We lable others or ourselves whatever we want, but none of it matters. Jesus defines his disciples not by the lable we put on.

As neither of us is Jesus, then we have to work with human definitions.

And since the standard definition for a Christian is the one I outlined, then we have to state that Hitler was a Christian.

Didn't have time lately, so this might seem a bit off topic by now.

Quote: › “Actually, I claimed there are no innocent people.”

God never ever killed small children or babies? I doubt that very, very much.
Or those children and babies were born sinners and deserved to die anyway?

If that is true, I don’t think I will ever be able to understand that. How can babies and young children be guilty of anything at all? Even if they would inherited a sinful nature they are not guilty of that and can’t help that, just like they can’t change the color of their skin.

And even when all babies could be born guilty of sin somehow; why do some babies deserve to die but others not, aren’t they all sinners? And how about the parents of those children? Are they not all sinners, so don’t they all deserve to suffer? Or are the parents of the murdered children of less value than others and deserve to suffer more?

And while we are at it: how does man’s sinful nature can cause a young child to suffer terribly and painfully from bone cancer and eventually die? Why does God takes away the mother of a young family, leaving dad alone with his small children?
If a human would do such things, we would be outraged. But if a God does those things we think they must be good somehow as God is good and can’t be bad no matter what.


Could you think of a universal method to decide which God is real and which one isn’t? A method that could be used even by unbelievers?

Harrie,

Quote: › God never ever killed small children or babies? I doubt that very, very much. Or those children and babies were born sinners and deserved to die anyway?

I already explained what happens to children and babies when they die. I'm not going into it again.

Quote: › how does man’s sinful nature can cause a young child to suffer terribly and painfully from bone cancer and eventually die?

When Adam sinned, God took away His upholding power from the earth.

God held together all things by His mighty word. He still does, to an extent, but not like prior to the fall. Sin cannot be in the presence of God. Adams sin separated the creation from God. Basically, the creation is on its own now.

This deterioration of creation is the cause of genetic mutations, abnormalities disease and the like.

You want to ascribe this to evolution. That's not true. The creation is groaning and suffering because Adams sin caused creation to separate from the life-giving power of God. God designed His creation to be able to withstand the fall.

This separation also caused the sin nature to form in man. From this sin nature comes acts of sin. Murder, envy, jealousy, etc.

Remember though, God did not leave us entirely. He still gave us hope. He still created us to endure this. This is where we get the diversity in our DNA. The knowledge to combat some of the effects of this fall.

Indeed, all of this is a learning experience for humanity. Without all of the history of the world happening, mankind could NEVER know what God is like. You may call this unfair. However, Unfair would be not knowing all there is to know about God.

Quote: › But if a God does those things we think they must be good somehow as God is good and can’t be bad no matter what.

You are so quick to blame God for all of this. Try blaming the one who is really at fault. Satan deceive Eve and then Adam directly disobeyed. They are the ones that are responsible. Satan hates God. Can't stand God. If not for satan, we would not have known suffering.

God allowed for this to happen, but it is not His fault that it did happen, no matter what you will say in response.

Quote: › Could you think of a universal method to decide which God is real and which one isn’t? A method that could be used even by unbelievers?

I tried that and you refused it.

I tried to show the differences in the means of salvation, you rejected it. You asked the wrong questions and refused any and all explanations.

Quote: › “I already explained what happens to children and babies when they die. I'm not going into it again.”

I’m not asking you. To you all this seems to make sense, it doesn't to me.
God is a ruthless killer but that is OK as He is God and He deserves our worship.

God kills because that was what ancient kings did.

Me: “how does man’s sinful nature can cause a young child to suffer terribly and painfully from bone cancer and eventually die?”

Quote: › “When Adam sinned, God took away His upholding power from the earth.”

So God makes innocent children suffer for a crime they did not commit.

Quote: › “Remember though, God did not leave us entirely. He still gave us hope. He still created us to endure this. This is where we get the diversity in our DNA. The knowledge to combat some of the effects of this fall.”

There is nothing about DNA in the Bible!

Quote: › “You are so quick to blame God for all of this.”

I don’t blame God as God does not exist. I blame the religious systems.

Quote: › “Satan hates God. Can't stand God. If not for satan, we would not have known suffering.”

God killed 2 million and Satan killed 10 with God’s approval.

Me: “Could you think of a universal method to decide which God is real and which one isn’t? A method that could be used even by unbelievers?”

Quote: › “I tried that and you refused it.”

Without referring to the Bible itself of course...

Quote: › “You asked the wrong questions and refused any and all explanations.”

In what way were my questions wrong?

Harrie,

Quote: › There is nothing about DNA in the Bible!

Try this site.

http://xkxy.org/articles/zhang008/zhang008.htm

It is quite interesting.

Interesting way to put a modern interpretation on ancient concepts.

Honestly, the best way to discern what Ezekiel was actually referring to is to look at the language within its historical context.

The only sure fire way to completely miss what Ezekiel was referring to is to do exactly what the authors of that article have done: take the language out of its original context and provide a modern contextual interpretation.

What you have provided is not only bad science. It is also bad Biblical study.

Nator,

Quote: › Interesting way to put a modern interpretation on ancient concepts.

And that is all it is. I didn't say I ascribed to this interpretation. I said I thought it was interesting.

Quote: › Honestly, the best way to discern what Ezekiel was actually referring to is to look at the language within its historical context.

And you are right. So then, what was Ezekiel describing here?

Quote: › What you have provided is not only bad science. It is also bad Biblical study.

How is it bad science? Are the scientific aspects of their article wrong? Are they wrong about the DNA descripitions? I don't know what you mean?

I wouldn't ascribe their interpretation to DNA myself, but I wouldn't completely dismiss it either.

How would a 6th century BC Israelite describe DNA in his language?

Quote: › And that is all it is. I didn't say I ascribed to this interpretation. I said I thought it was interesting.

Never said or implied you did. Just pointing out the facts. No need to get defensive.

Quote: › And you are right. So then, what was Ezekiel describing here?

I'm unsure as I have studied neither the passage nor the historical context enough.

Quote: › How is it bad science? Are the scientific aspects of their article wrong? Are they wrong about the DNA descripitions? I don't know what you mean?

Not bad in that way. Bad in their methods. They are not looking at science from an independent vantage point. They are looking at it as a means for confirming their beliefs.

Quote: › I wouldn't ascribe their interpretation to DNA myself, but I wouldn't completely dismiss it either.

I'm not dismissing their description. I am dismissing their methods. They are not looking for to advance knowledge. They are looking merely for confirmation of already held beliefs.

Quote: › How would a 6th century BC Israelite describe DNA in his language?

Unknown and unknowable, since DNA is a very modern discovery. Honestly, I find it an irrelevant question.

Quote: › “Try this site. http://xkxy.org/articles/zhang008/zhang008.htm It is quite interesting.”

It is indeed very interesting; I have read it with increasing amazement.

Again many questions pop into my mind:
Did Ezekiel or anyone else living after him interpret this text this “DNA” way, until this author did so?
And if nobody ever did before, what was the use of this text if it only could be interpreted correctly AFTER the DNA structure was discovered by scientists?
WHY didn’t theists go to scientists with the Bible in their hands telling the scientists about DNA, BEFORE the scientists had to discover DNA by themselves? After all, that would have been a wonderful boost to the truth of the Bible?

Quote: › “How would a 6th century BC Israelite describe DNA in his language?”

Would 6th century BC Israelites have a lower intelligence than humans today, and has the average human today a thorough understanding of science and DNA in particular?
IF the purpose of this divine inspired vision was to teach us about DNA, why the ‘mystical’ use of language? For example: a spiral staircase would have been a better example than a stormy wind? You could explain it as instructions to construct something? Ezekiel doesn’t even talk about a whirl wind or tornado, that’s what the authors need to create out of it to even start! They need a modified picture in an attempt to convince people!

“As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming bronze.”

Another problem: what is the use of DNA if we can’t evolve anyway? After all, God created us in His image, didn’t He, so why would we ever need to change?
And do you belief, as a Christian, in all honesty that this is indeed the way it is supposed to be read?
Did you talk about this with the elders of your congregration and what did they say about it?
And can’t we now completely reinterpret the whole Bible to read evolution in it if we want, how to construct a transistor radio, how to fill in our tax forms and more? It only takes a bit of creativety and we apparently are allowed to transform a stromy wind and a cloud into a double helix, so we surely are quite free to use our imagination and only need to follow the text for a tiny bit, ignoring what does not fit?

How about this interpretation for example?

It fits even much better than the DNA one! But does that make it true?

It all makes me so sad and a bit angry at the same time...

Nator,

Quote: › No need to get defensive.

Ahh, the lack of emotions and personal nuances in the written word. I wasn't getting defensive.

Quote: › They are looking merely for confirmation of already held beliefs.

And where is the harm in that? All people regardless of beliefs look for confirmation of said beliefs all of the time.

Quote: › Honestly, I find it an irrelevant question.

It's only irrelevant because this interpretation could be a valid and correct interpretation. I said could be.

Harrie,

Quote: › Did Ezekiel or anyone else living after him interpret this text this “DNA” way, until this author did so?

Doubt it because, as Nator has said also, the discovery of DNA is rather new.

Quote: › And if nobody ever did before, what was the use of this text if it only could be interpreted correctly AFTER the DNA structure was discovered by scientists?

This text has always been rather enigmatic to many. Most theologians have interpreted these types of passages as apocalyptic in nature. Referring to the end times if you will.

I'm not much of a student of end times prophecy to give a clear answer.

Quote: › WHY didn’t theists go to scientists with the Bible in their hands telling the scientists about DNA, BEFORE the scientists had to discover DNA by themselves?

Theists already told us that God created the world and everything around and on it. They would have turned them away anyway.

But, the term DNA is new, so how would a theist know this?

Just as our knowledge of the past is incomplete, so is our knowledge of the future.

Quote: › After all, that would have been a wonderful boost to the truth of the Bible?

So, finding an inscription in 1950, 3000 years after he lived, that mentions King David of Israel, when most skeptics argued he was ficticious, was not a boost? Anyone would think it is a boost.

Quote: › Would 6th century BC Israelites have a lower intelligence than humans today, and has the average human today a thorough understanding of science and DNA in particular?

Nope, just different words.

Quote: › IF the purpose of this divine inspired vision was to teach us about DNA, why the ‘mystical’ use of language? For example: a spiral staircase would have been a better example than a stormy wind?

But can a spiral staircase move and distibute things on its own like a whirlwind can? Is a staircase powerful enough to do what a whirlwind does?

Quote: › You could explain it as instructions to construct something?

DNA is already constructed.

Quote: › Ezekiel doesn’t even talk about a whirl wind or tornado, that’s what the authors need to create out of it to even start!

Read your KJV and your NKJV and others.

Quote: › Another problem: what is the use of DNA if we can’t evolve anyway? After all, God created us in His image, didn’t He, so why would we ever need to change?

God has a personality, so do His creations. There is unity and diversity in the Trinity.

Quote: › And do you belief, as a Christian, in all honesty that this is indeed the way it is supposed to be read?

No. But I will not hold myself to any single interpretation unless the evidence points there conclusively.

Quote: › Did you talk about this with the elders of your congregration and what did they say about it?

No. I will not teach this so I don't need to.

Quote: › It only takes a bit of creativety and we apparently are allowed to transform a stromy wind and a cloud into a double helix, so we surely are quite free to use our imagination and only need to follow the text for a tiny bit, ignoring what does not fit?

This is one reason why I don't ascribe to the "bible codes". It is too easy to do this and yet miss the central, overall theme of the book. That is Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.

Quote: › It all makes me so sad and a bit angry at the same time...

Why?

Quote: › Ahh, the lack of emotions and personal nuances in the written word. I wasn't getting defensive.

Gotta love these moments.

Quote: › And where is the harm in that? All people regardless of beliefs look for confirmation of said beliefs all of the time.

While there is no inherent harm in the activity itself, the manner in which they are abusing science and proper bible studies can be harmful to those fields.

Quote: › It's only irrelevant because this interpretation could be a valid and correct interpretation. I said could be.

No. The question is irrelevant because the mode of thinking required to even understand the concept of DNA was not in place in the culture and time of Ezekiel. Without even the basic conceptual framework to begin to frame the questions, there is no way Ezekiel could have even known what he was looking at if he was looking at DNA, much less found proper wording to describe it.

The question is just simply out of place. You may as well have asked me how an aboriginal with no contact of any cultures outside his own tribe or the limited ones nearby would describe a high powered fully automatic machine gun. Such a thing simply would not make sense.

Quote: › Theists already told us that God created the world and everything around and on it. They would have turned them away anyway.

Incorrect. The earliest Western scientists were very devout Christians looking for a way to explain their observations about the world. These scientists set out to prove the bible. It was most unfortunate for them that many could not.

Quote: › So, finding an inscription in 1950, 3000 years after he lived, that mentions King David of Israel, when most skeptics argued he was ficticious, was not a boost? Anyone would think it is a boost.

Never bought the fictitious claim on that one. David was real. The stories about him are very likely heavily embellished. And I think the supernatural stuff is rubbish.

Same way I think about a lot of stories about ancient kings, no matter the culture of origination.

Nator,

Quote: › Gotta love these moments.

That is one reason we have a tendency to disagree on certain things at certain times.

Quote: › While there is no inherent harm in the activity itself, the manner in which they are abusing science and proper bible studies can be harmful to those fields.

Certainly.

Quote: › You may as well have asked me how an aboriginal with no contact of any cultures outside his own tribe or the limited ones nearby would describe a high powered fully automatic machine gun.

A loud fire stick perhaps?

They would describe it in ways the could describe it.

Quote: › Such a thing simply would not make sense.

Not to us perhaps. But to them it may.

Quote: › These scientists set out to prove the bible.

With modern advancements they may yet do that.

I believe many have already.

Quote: › Never bought the fictitious claim on that one.

Many did though.

Quote: › A loud fire stick perhaps? They would describe it in ways the could describe it.

They would no doubt attempt to. Of course, those descriptions might make absolutely no sense whatsoever at any time and in any culture other than that one right then.

In other words, outside that one moment in that culture, that description could be meaningless jibberish and utterly worthless. I figure the same would apply to Ezekiel attempting to describe DNA.

Quote: › With modern advancements they may yet do that.

Or they may prove the exact opposite.

Or they could reach no conclusion.

Me: ”Did Ezekiel or anyone else living after him interpret this text this “DNA” way, until this author did so?”

Quote: › “Doubt it because, as Nator has said also, the discovery of DNA is rather new.”

I mean: did it teach anyone about DNA, BEFORE DNA was discovered?


Me: “And if nobody ever did before, what was the use of this text if it only could be interpreted correctly AFTER the DNA structure was discovered by scientists?”

Quote: › “This text has always been rather enigmatic to many. (...) I'm not much of a student of end times prophecy to give a clear answer.”

You didn’t answer my question. What is the use of this text IF it is really about DNA, if nobody ever managed to understand that it was about DNA? And only realize that it was about DNA AFTER DNA was discovered?

Me: “WHY didn’t theists go to scientists with the Bible in their hands telling the scientists about DNA, BEFORE the scientists had to discover DNA by themselves?”

Quote: › “Theists already told us that God created the world and everything around and on it. They would have turned them away anyway.”

That is not what I mean. DNA in itself isn’t at all proof for God’s existence I hope you will agree? So if the Bible clearly speaks about DNA in a time humanity wasn’t anywhere near learning about that, and theists could have showed the world that this great information in the Bible was correct, many skeptics would think differently about the Bible as it would have predicted a scientific fact.

Quote: › “But, the term DNA is new, so how would a theist know this?”

Ezekiel never mentioned the term DNA, did he? You claim that Ezekiel described DNA, that is enough, it isn’t about the name at all of course.


Me: “After all, that would have been a wonderful boost to the truth of the Bible?”

Quote: › “So, finding an inscription in 1950, 3000 years after he lived, that mentions King David of Israel, when most skeptics argued he was ficticious, was not a boost? Anyone would think it is a boost.”

Of course not. Such things are about the past. That doesn’t mean a thing concerning the divine truth of the Bible. If it would contain scientific facts that could not be known in that time, THAT would be a boost for the divine truth of the Bible, make it more plausible.

Me: "Would 6th century BC Israelites have a lower intelligence than humans today, and has the average human today a thorough understanding of science and DNA in particular?"
“Nope, just different words.”
So people who lived back than, would be able to understand the concept I think, and there would be no need for mystic language that could mean just about anything, only adjusting the use of language.

Quote: › “But can a spiral staircase move and distibute things on its own like a whirlwind can? Is a staircase powerful enough to do what a whirlwind does?”

A whirlwind doesn’t look like DNA (except in that nice picture) and it is destructive, for example. I have never heard of a tornado constructing a house.


Me: “You could explain it as instructions to construct something?”

Quote: › “DNA is already constructed.”

I’m talking about DNA being the code beings are constructed by, as a way to explain people who don’t know anything about the science behind DNA.

Quote: › “Read your KJV and your NKJV and others.”

That would not help: I am not guided by the Holy Spirit, can't understand a word of it. And I'm not cynical here: we rarely agree on the interpretation of Bible verses.


Me: “Another problem: what is the use of DNA if we can’t evolve anyway? After all, God created us in His image, didn’t He, so why would we ever need to change?”

Quote: › “God has a personality, so do His creations. There is unity and diversity in the Trinity.”

But God does not change over time does He? He does not evolve does He?
And we do not evolve you always claim? So why do we need DNA?

Me: “And do you belief, as a Christian, in all honesty that this is indeed the way it is supposed to be read?”

Quote: › “No. But I will not hold myself to any single interpretation unless the evidence points there conclusively.”

If you do not belief that interpretation is right, why did you bring it up to indicate that the Bible DID mention DNA? This whole Ezekiel story was your response to my: "There is nothing about DNA in the Bible!"

Me: “It all makes me so sad and a bit angry at the same time...”

Quote: › “Why?”

I belief that in order for humanity to have a chance, we need a proper model of reality so we can effectively solve our problems. That article was an example of activities that definitely are not going to help.
I truly wonder about the motivations of the authors, they must realize that they are creating fiction? If they simply said so it would be no problem at all, but they seem to pass it of as the truth.


Nator:

Quote: › “These scientists set out to prove the bible.”

Quote: › “With modern advancements they may yet do that.”

Do you have reasons for that assumption? And how about modern advancements that prove the Bible wrong? Are you only going to belief the ones that might confirm the Bible and discard all the rest?
Is the existence of King David enough to assume Genesis literally happened?
Can't an ancient book not be right about some things but wrong about others?

Quote: › “I believe many have already.”

Show me please.

Harrie,

Quote: › I mean: did it teach anyone about DNA, BEFORE DNA was discovered?

Not the way you would want them to.

Paul said all men came from one man, adam.

Quote: › What is the use of this text IF it is really about DNA, if nobody ever managed to understand that it was about DNA?

To show modern man a little bit more about God than was previously known. Maybe.

Quote: › DNA in itself isn’t at all proof for God’s existence I hope you will agree?

I agree.

Quote: › many skeptics would think differently about the Bible as it would have predicted a scientific fact.

How would you explain DNA without modern terminology and understanding?

Quote: › Ezekiel never mentioned the term DNA, did he?

No.

Quote: › You claim that Ezekiel described DNA, that is enough, it isn’t about the name at all of course.

You really don't read what is said in depth do you.

I never claimed Ezekiel was describing DNA. I linked you to a site that claimed that and thought you might find it interesting. But, again, you seemed to think that is the way Christians think.

This is a troubling trend with you, Harrie.

Quote: › If it would contain scientific facts that could not be known in that time, THAT would be a boost for the divine truth of the Bible, make it more plausible.

Ok, so in Genesis, when Jacob selectively bred goats, and we didn't know how that worked until the last 200 years, what now?

There is clear evidence of selection and now that we understand it, you blame evolution? Dang Harrie. You never will quit rejecting will you?

Quote: › A whirlwind doesn’t look like DNA (except in that nice picture) and it is destructive, for example. I have never heard of a tornado constructing a house.

I think it may be a metaphor indicating the awesome power of DNA.

Quote: › I’m talking about DNA being the code beings are constructed by, as a way to explain people who don’t know anything about the science behind DNA.

When have you ever seen chance construct anything?

Quote: › That would not help: I am not guided by the Holy Spirit, can't understand a word of it. And I'm not cynical here: we rarely agree on the interpretation of Bible verses.

Well, did you read that verse? Of course not or you would have seen that the translators used the term whirlwind.

Ezekiel 1:4 KJV

4And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.

Ezekiel 1:4 NKJV

4 Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire.

Quote: › And we do not evolve you always claim? So why do we need DNA?

I have always given room and credence to adaptation.

Quote: › If you do not belief that interpretation is right, why did you bring it up to indicate that the Bible DID mention DNA?

Because you are stubborn enough to declare this without research.

All you have done are give me straw man arguments as why YOU don't think this could pertain to DNA.

Quote: › That article was an example of activities that definitely are not going to help.

How do you know this? What makes you so smug?

And if the bible is correct in all that it says concerning sin and salvation through Christ Jesus, why wouldn't it be benficial to tell people about it? I mean, IT WILL save them from eternal punishment. So what is the harm?

Quote: › And how about modern advancements that prove the Bible wrong?

And what are those advancements Harrie?

Quote: › Show me please.

I have already. You reject them because they disrupt your cozy little kingdom.