Heresy within Christianity

[Paul Christensen]

I seem to remember reading something about him changing the color of the sheep

Oh. It was while he was employed by Laban after he had fled from Esau. He changed the colouring of his herd through interbreeding. This is the way he gained wealth at Laban's expense. He fell in love with Laban's daughter Rachel, and a deal was struck that if he worked for Laban for seven years, Jacob would be able to take Rachel for his wife. But Laban tricked him by sneaking his elder daughter Leah into the honeymoon tent and Jacob consummated his marriage with her before he found out who it was that he was married to. The way they arranged marriages in those days was the woman was brought to the man, had sex, which made them a married couple.

So Jacob decided to get his own back on Laban, and made a deal that he would take ownership of parts of the herd that was a certain colour. Laban agreed. Then Jacob interbred the herd to ensure that more offspring were of the right colour so he could take legal ownership of them. He had to work another seven years to receive Rachel as his second wife. By the time he had worked the second seven years and had married Rachel, he was very wealthy at Laban's expense. The way people gathered wealth in those days was through the size of their flocks of sheep and goats. The bigger the herd, the more wealthy the person was.

I trust that this throw a bit more light on this for you.

 

[Waiting on him]

Oh. It was while he was employed by Laban after he had fled from Esau. He changed the colouring of his herd through interbreeding. This is the way he gained wealth at Laban's expense. He fell in love with Laban's daughter Rachel, and a deal was struck that if he worked for Laban for seven years, Jacob would be able to take Rachel for his wife. But Laban tricked him by sneaking his elder daughter Leah into the honeymoon tent and Jacob consummated his marriage with her before he found out who it was that he was married to. The way they arranged marriages in those days was the woman was brought to the man, had sex, which made them a married couple.

So Jacob decided to get his own back on Laban, and made a deal that he would take ownership of parts of the herd that was a certain colour. Laban agreed. Then Jacob interbred the herd to ensure that more offspring were of the right colour so he could take legal ownership of them. He had to work another seven years to receive Rachel as his second wife. By the time he had worked the second seven years and had married Rachel, he was very wealthy at Laban's expense. The way people gathered wealth in those days was through the size of their flocks of sheep and goats. The bigger the herd, the more wealthy the person was.

I trust that this throw a bit more light on this for you.

I'll look to see if it states he interbreed them .

Thanks

 

[Paul Christensen]

It's a really odd passage, and the meaning is controversial. It appears that as Laban kept changing the terms of their agreement, God kept changing the herd to favor Jacob. There's some suggestion therein that some kind of magic was being attempted but that isn't clear, either.

I think it was interbreeding with some help from the Lord. I don't think that Jacob would have known about the theory of genetics, that interbreeding animals with the same genes causes offspring with that gene. We know that if a male and female goat have a brown (B) and white (W) genes, then their offspring could be B or W goats depending on the dominant gene. But when we get a B male goat, mating with a B female goat, the offspring has to be a B goat. It can't be a W goat because the W gene in the parent goats is no longer there.

Jacob would not have known what we know now about it, but through experience at goat breeding he would have some knowledge that if he mated two brown goats together, they would most probably produce a brown offspring. So if he made a deal with Laban that certain coloured goats would be his and the rest be Laban's, then with his experience and cunning he would work the interbreeding so that more of the certain coloured goats would be produced than the ones Laban would retain.

 

[Yehren]

What I am saying is that if no one was there when the world was first formed, no one can know exactly how it was formed.

Actually, physics and astrophysics gives us a lot of information about that. For one thing, we know the formation of our sun was in response to the shockwave of an exploding supernova. If that wasn't the case, there would be no elements beyond the Sun, heavier than lithium.

We can repeat scientific laws in the laboratory, for example, gravity. We know that gravity is true, because we can repeat the apple falling on Newton's head by dropping an apple on someone else's head.

You've confused Newton's laws of motion with this theory of gravitation. Gravity is almost as well-established as evolution. You see, we know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works. Would you like to learn about that?

But we can't know exactly what a dinosaur looked like because there are no photographs of them.

Because of their bones, we know a great deal about them. The bones tell us what their bodies were like, since the muscle insertions tell us how they were shaped. We know they had colored patterns because we do have fossils of their skins, with remains of pigments. We know about how fast they were, because of something called Froude numbers.

You could probably have outrun a T. Rex, for example.

Also, the drawings showed artistic talent and intelligence which showed that the man who drew them had the same artistic talent as artists today

You've got an example of ancient artists who could draw in perspective? Show us that. That would be remarkable. But I don't think you have anything like that. Drawing in perspective is a fairly modern human capability, starting about at the Renaissance. Don't think they had shading down, either. At least I've never seen it in ancient drawings.

[QUOTE"]Therefore we can conclude that man either stopped evolving millions of years ago, or that normal humans existed in the more recent past and did not evolve from inferior life forms.[/QUOTE]

Neandertals, Denesovans, Heidelberg Man, and so on, are much more recent than that, and although close enough genetically to be considered part of our own species, they were considerably different than humans living today. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[Waiting on him]

You've got an example of ancient artists who could draw in perspective? Show us that. That would be remarkable. But I don't think you have anything like that. Drawing in perspective is a fairly modern human capability, starting about at the Renaissance. Don't think they had shading down, either. At least I've never seen it in ancient drawings.

I believe everything I've seen of ancient Egypt art is all two dimentional.

 

[Yehren]

It's an old belief, that persists to this day; some think whatever a pregnant female sees, can mark the offspring.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Actually, physics and astrophysics gives us a lot of information about that. For one thing, we know the formation of our sun was in response to the shockwave of an exploding supernova. If that wasn't the case, there would be no elements beyond the Sun, heavier than lithium.

If there were actual observation that this is exactly what happened concerning the formation of the sun, then we can definitely say it happened that way. If no, we don't know what happened, we can only guess.

You've confused Newton's laws of motion with this theory of gravitation. Gravity is almost as well-established as evolution. You see, we know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works. Would you like to learn about that?

I used gravity as just an example of a proven scientific law. Yes, we know how evolution would work if it actually did happen that way. We can't know why evolution would work because we don't know by any observable evidence of it actually working. All we have is static present evidence that it might have occurred though evolution, but we can never be sure because we have no observational data to show the origin and development of the evidence.

I agree that the story of evolution is very convincing with very attractive diagrams and art work, but it exists only in those diagrams and artwork; and in the written theories of evolutionists.

But no one has been able to ask the question about how everything in the universe and our world was formed out of absolutely nothing. Evolutionist have recognised that it could never have happened that way, so they have theorised that there was some kind of "capsule" of energy that exploded into matter that formed the universe. Given that science has proved that an explosion causes chaos and disorder, no one has been able to explain how an explosion like the big bang caused a universe that functions with absolute order with definite rules of physics. Also, the energy and heat such an explosion would produce would cause everything produced to be absolutely sterile, so no one has been able to explain how organic life could appear out of a totally sterile universe.

The only way these questions could be answered is that evolutionists would have to believe in magic.

So, I repeat - evolution cannot be a scientific reality because it does not come within the criteria of the scientific method in which observation and repeatability is essential.

Because of their bones, we know a great deal about them. The bones tell us what their bodies were like, since the muscle insertions tell us how they were shaped. We know they had colored patterns because we do have fossils of their skins, with remains of pigments. We know about how fast they were, because of something called Froude numbers.

You could probably have outrun a T. Rex, for example.

True.

You've got an example of ancient artists who could draw in perspective? Show us that. That would be remarkable. But I don't think you have anything like that. Drawing in perspective is a fairly modern human capability, starting about at the Renaissance. Don't think they had shading down, either. At least I've never seen it in ancient drawings.

What we are seeing in cave drawings are two-dimensional but fairly accurate drawings of the animals and humans depicted in them. My view is that these drawings are less than 6000 years old.

Therefore we can conclude that man either stopped evolving millions of years ago, or that normal humans existed in the more recent past and did not evolve from inferior life forms.

Neandertals, Denesovans, Heidelberg Man, and so on, are much more recent than that, and although close enough genetically to be considered part of our own species, they were considerably different than humans living today. Would you like to learn about that?

There are no actual examples of these different forms of human beings. There is no observable evidence that they even existed. Most complete bodies that have been dug up have subsequently been shown either to be hoaxes or normal humans with disabilities. No collections of bones have been found to form a complete skeleton of any of these intermediary species, in the same way that full skeletons of dinosaur bones have been found. What we have as "evidence" of a half ape half man is maybe a leg bone from one part of Africa, a jaw bone from another part, and some finger bones from still another part, and it is not established whether all these bones are actually human. So what evolutionists have done is to cobble these bones together and use clay modelling to construct what they believe is an ape-like man. The sad deception is that people going to the museum and seeing that clay model are led to believe that it is a model of a real entity, when it is just a guess-work model constructed around a few random bones. What about the jaw bone that someone found and presented as a ape-man, and after close examination it would found to be the jaw bone of a wild pig!

 

[Grailhunter]

I have proved that evolution is a lie, because I have asked for proof, using the scientific method of observation and repeatability, which is essential for something to be regarded as a science, and no one has been able to show by actual observation that any kind of animal has changed into any other type of animal. All that has been shown to me is either adaptation of the animal without any change of kind, or a bacteria living inside of an amoeba but no change in either the bacteria or the amoeba.

Therefore evolution is not a science at all, but a religion based on a system of belief that cannot be proved by anything that can be observed or repeated.

Do you honestly believe that everything that exists was created out of absolutely nothing? How can that be a science, when it cannot be verified by the only way a scientific theory can be proved - the scientific method of actual observation and repeatability.

I have proved that evolution is a lie, because I have asked for proof, using the scientific method of observation and repeatability,
You are a legend in your own mind. All you have proven is that you found a source for weird science. What is the name of the that university? Come-be=dumb-high.

Do you honestly believe that everything that exists was created out of absolutely nothing?
AGAIN....Evolving is a fact and a topic....creation is of God and evolution happened with God at the helm. No mystery.

 

[Yehren]

If there were actual observation that this is exactly what happened concerning the formation of the sun, then we can definitely say it happened that way. If no, we don't know what happened, we can only guess.

Nope. For example, all elements heavier than lithium are formed within stars. So all those other elements were from the debris of an exploding star. No way to dodge it.

I used gravity as just an example of a proven scientific law.

Two errors there. First, nothing is proven in science, and gravity is not a mere law. If it were only a law, it would predict things, but be unable to explain them. Gravity is a theory. That's what Newton called it; "my theory."

You've confused the proper definition of "theory", with the informal use laymen put on it.

What we are seeing in cave drawings are two-dimensional but fairly accurate drawings of the animals and humans depicted in them.

But they are far, far, from being as good as drawings of artists today, contrary to your earlier claim.

There are no actual examples of these different forms of human beings. There is no observable evidence that they even existed.

Other than complete skeletons, their DNA, their artifacts, and the fact that non-Africans carry some of their DNA today. C'mon.

Most complete bodies that have been dug up have subsequently been shown either to be hoaxes or normal humans with disabilities.

Sorry, that dodge won't work. For example, one creationist made up a story that the bow-legged skeletons indicated these were just deformed people with rickets. But the skeletons of Neandertals are stronger than the skeletons of modern humans, so that falls apart. Another creationist said that they were just very long-lived humans, and their differences were due to age. But Neandertal children had the same characteristics, so that excuse failed, too.

If you have something persuasive to show us, now would be the time.

No collections of bones have been found to form a complete skeleton of any of these intermediary species, in the same way that full skeletons of dinosaur bones have been found.

We know more facts about Neanderthals than any other extinct humans. Many thousands of their artefacts and fossils have been found, including several nearly complete skeletons.


We also know about their genetic make-up, as several Neanderthal genomes have now been reconstructed from ancient DNA obtained from their fossils.
Who were the Neanderthals?

Got a link to a fossil of a dinosaur with absolutely no bones missing? Show us what you have.

What about the jaw bone that someone found and presented as a ape-man, and after close examination it would found to be the jaw bone of a wild pig!

Link us to that. Checkable source, please. I think you got it completely wrong. It was a tooth, oddly worn to look human, and it wasn't a pig, it was a peccary. It was found by a dinosaur specialist; as soon as a mammal specialist took a look at it, he knew it wasn't human.

Are you beginning to realize you're trusting people who really aren't telling you the truth?

 

[Yehren]

I believe everything I've seen of ancient Egypt art is all two dimentional.

Yes, perspective really wasn't invented the Renaissance. But shading and anatomical realism were much earlier, albeit not from prehistoric humans.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I have proved that evolution is a lie, because I have asked for proof, using the scientific method of observation and repeatability,
You are a legend in your own mind. All you have proven is that you found a source for weird science. What is the name of the that university? Come-be=dumb-high.

Do you honestly believe that everything that exists was created out of absolutely nothing?
AGAIN....Evolving is a fact and a topic....creation is of God and evolution happened with God at the helm. No mystery.

My foundation is the literal text of the Bible where God is paramount and His Word is totally accurate and true. God has said what He meant, and meant what He said. His literal Word is not open to the judgment of man.

Yes. I am dogmatic about this because it is the foundation of my religion. You have the foundation of your religion.

I accept the word of the Person who was there at the formation of the world. He is quite definite about it. If someone doesn't believe Genesis 1-11 then they cannot believe the rest of the Bible. A literal view of Genesis 1-11 is foundational to the gospel of Christ. If these chapters are not literal, but figurative, then there are no rules about clothing, marriage, no sin; and therefore anything goes, people can make their own rules, and because of the belief of superior and inferior human races, then there is no answer to racism because it is inseparately linked to evolution; and the foundation of the gospel of Christ falls apart, because if there is no literal disobedience in a real garden, then there is no sacrifice for sin, and there is no guarantee that Jesus was a real person. Consequently there is no salvation and no eternal life. Life becomes a hopeless journey toward death and oblivion. That means what's the point of achieving anything if it all ends at death and the person and all their achievements in their world rot with them in a lonely grace in the corner of a cemetery?

Such a person wouldn't even really know if a person called Paul actually existed, but if he did, he said, "If we have hope just in this life, we are of all people most miserable (1 Corinthians 15:9).

 

[Paul Christensen]

Nope. For example, all elements heavier than lithium are formed within stars. So all those other elements were from the debris of an exploding star. No way to dodge it.



Two errors there. First, nothing is proven in science, and gravity is not a mere law. If it were only a law, it would predict things, but be unable to explain them. Gravity is a theory. That's what Newton called it; "my theory."

You've confused the proper definition of "theory", with the informal use laymen put on it.



But they are far, far, from being as good as drawings of artists today, contrary to your earlier claim.



Other than complete skeletons, their DNA, their artifacts, and the fact that non-Africans carry some of their DNA today. C'mon.



Sorry, that dodge won't work. For example, one creationist made up a story that the bow-legged skeletons indicated these were just deformed people with rickets. But the skeletons of Neandertals are stronger than the skeletons of modern humans, so that falls apart. Another creationist said that they were just very long-lived humans, and their differences were due to age. But Neandertal children had the same characteristics, so that excuse failed, too.

If you have something persuasive to show us, now would be the time.



We know more facts about Neanderthals than any other extinct humans. Many thousands of their artefacts and fossils have been found, including several nearly complete skeletons.


We also know about their genetic make-up, as several Neanderthal genomes have now been reconstructed from ancient DNA obtained from their fossils.
Who were the Neanderthals?

Got a link to a fossil of a dinosaur with absolutely no bones missing? Show us what you have.



Link us to that. Checkable source, please. I think you got it completely wrong. It was a tooth, oddly worn to look human, and it wasn't a pig, it was a peccary. It was found by a dinosaur specialist; as soon as a mammal specialist took a look at it, he knew it wasn't human.

Are you beginning to realize you're trusting people who really aren't telling you the truth?

Any belief system that involves evolution in any part of it, is a religion based on a belief system which is taken by faith. It is actually blind faith because there is no objective truth on which it can be based. It is an existential (faith in faith) type of believing which says, "If I believe it, then it is truth for me".

The foundation of my religious faith is based on an object - God's literal Word that He, through the Holy Spirit, gave holy men of God to write their record of what He said to them. For me, the literal text of the Bible is paramount to my thinking. You can believe what you decide to believe. I am not intending to convert you to it, because I cannot. Only God Himself can show anyone that His literal Word is truth because He does not lie. All I can do is to declare it, and you can do what you like with it.

You and I will individually stand before a holy God one day in the judgment. I am totally confident that because I believe what God says in the Bible is literally true, and that I believe because of that Jesus is a real person who came and died on the cross to take the penalty for my sinfulness so that I can be acquitted by God through His grace and mercy.

I just wonder, seeing that there are significant foundational parts of the Bible that you don't believe is God's literal Word, whether you would have the same confidence in your position at the judgment.

 

[Yehren]

Any belief system that involves evolution in any part of it, is a religion based on a belief system which is taken by faith.

Nope. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. And evolutionary theory has had its predictions repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Would you like to learn about some of them?

You've accepted man's revision of scripture. But so long as you do what God wants of you, your salvation is still possible.

You and I will individually stand before a holy God one day in the judgment. I am totally confident that because I believe what God says in the Bible is literally true, and that I believe because of that Jesus is a real person who came and died on the cross to take the penalty for my sinfulness so that I can be acquitted by God through His grace and mercy.

Read Matthew 25 to learn what will save you. It's not theology. It's what you do, or don't do.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Which is fortunate, since there are significant foundational parts of the Bible that you don't believe is God's literal word.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Nope. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. And evolutionary theory has had its predictions repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Would you like to learn about some of them?

You've accepted man's revision of scripture. But so long as you do what God wants of you, your salvation is still possible.



Read Matthew 25 to learn what will save you. It's not theology. It's what you do, or don't do.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Which is fortunate, since there are significant foundational parts of the Bible that you don't believe is God's literal word.

Well, we come right back to my question: Can you show me one observed example of how evolution has worked, say, in the development of a human being from an ape? That should be fairly simple, because that is a principal teaching of how evolution works for humans.

Also, the fact that you have to quote Scriptures that imply that one day I will stand before the Lord and be condemned by Him, shows that because you are either unable or unwilling to answer my direct questions about any actual observations of evolution working, (not how it worked - I don't want to know about the past. I want you to show me examples of evolution actually taking place in the present. I will accept actual photographs showing the gradual change from one species of human to another.), you are seeking to discredit me for the particular Biblical stand that I am taking. When you have to resort to this, it shows that you are devoid of any real answers and cannot admit to yourself that you don't really know how evolution worked or is working in the present.

The reality is that the silent majority who read these posts are able to make up their own minds which my foundation is more the truth, or yours; or whether you are winning or losing the argument.

 

[Bobby Jo]

Not that Scripture is of "value", but some might argue that the Genesis account is inherently evolutionary:

1. a planet
2. light
3. clouds and ocean
4. land
5. plants
6. moon and stars with day & night
7. fish
8. birds
9. land animals
10. man​

Now one could argue GOD's intervention in this evolution, or not. Equally, one could argue that each phase #1-9 could have been billions of years, or not. And who can argue that because we haven't seen "evolution" in 6,000 years, that it didn't transpire in a billion years?

In analogy, -- perhaps we're not "aging" because our "time lapse" is only one minute. But taken in entirety, we're clearly aging.

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually not arguing for "evolution" in and of itself, but merely addressing the panorama of Genesis, which might have a different solution than we're willing to accept.

And clearly @Paul Christensen has no interest addressing Scripture and History, otherwise he would have answered the Daniel Chapter 8 FALSE commentator assertion of a DUAL MONARCHY under Cyrus; and the FALSE commentator assertion that Alexander's empire was divided between FOUR Generals, when History defines FIVE Generals.

And so our religious doctrines blind us from the TRUTH, whether from Genesis or from the Prophecies of Daniel. And more often than not, we're willing participants in our own delusions. -- For SOME of us, that is ...


Bobby Jo

 

[Grailhunter]

My foundation is the literal text of the Bible where God is paramount and His Word is totally accurate and true. God has said what He meant, and meant what He said. His literal Word is not open to the judgment of man.

Yes. I am dogmatic about this because it is the foundation of my religion. You have the foundation of your religion.

I accept the word of the Person who was there at the formation of the world. He is quite definite about it. If someone doesn't believe Genesis 1-11 then they cannot believe the rest of the Bible. A literal view of Genesis 1-11 is foundational to the gospel of Christ. If these chapters are not literal, but figurative, then there are no rules about clothing, marriage, no sin; and therefore anything goes, people can make their own rules, and because of the belief of superior and inferior human races, then there is no answer to racism because it is inseparately linked to evolution; and the foundation of the gospel of Christ falls apart, because if there is no literal disobedience in a real garden, then there is no sacrifice for sin, and there is no guarantee that Jesus was a real person. Consequently there is no salvation and no eternal life. Life becomes a hopeless journey toward death and oblivion. That means what's the point of achieving anything if it all ends at death and the person and all their achievements in their world rot with them in a lonely grace in the corner of a cemetery?

Such a person wouldn't even really know if a person called Paul actually existed, but if he did, he said, "If we have hope just in this life, we are of all people most miserable (1 Corinthians 15:9).

My foundation is the literal text of the Bible where God is paramount and His Word is totally accurate and true.
Oh this is going to be fun! Literal text....I can have a hey-day with that. Can I ask questions about your beliefs in regard to the Old Testament or the New Testament....or both.

 

[Paul Christensen]

My foundation is the literal text of the Bible where God is paramount and His Word is totally accurate and true.
Oh this is going to be fun! Literal text....I can have a hey-day with that. Can I ask questions about your beliefs in regard to the Old Testament or the New Testament....or both.

Yep! Bring it on!!

 

[Bobby Jo]

My foundation is the literal text of the Bible where God is paramount and His Word is totally accurate and true.
Oh this is going to be fun! Literal text....I can have a hey-day with that. Can I ask questions about your beliefs in regard to the Old Testament or the New Testament....or both.

Be careful @Grailhunter. I asked @Paul Christensen to defend his assertions regarding the Dan. 8 purported DUAL MONARCHY (Ram with TWO Horns); and asked him to defend the FALSE assertion that Alexander's empire was broken between FOUR Generals, -- and even provided the names and accounts of the FIVE Generals, which endured for some 42 years; -- and @Paul Christensen RAN FROM THE DISCUSSION, and has been running ever since.

So good luck getting ANYTHING from this guy except a REPEAT PERFORMANCE.
Bobby Jo

 

[Paul Christensen]

Nope. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. And evolutionary theory has had its predictions repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Would you like to learn about some of them?

You've accepted man's revision of scripture. But so long as you do what God wants of you, your salvation is still possible.



Read Matthew 25 to learn what will save you. It's not theology. It's what you do, or don't do.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Which is fortunate, since there are significant foundational parts of the Bible that you don't believe is God's literal word.

I have a further question to ask you:
Did death, suffering, and disease exist before Adam's fall?

 

[Grailhunter]

Be careful @Grailhunter. I asked @Paul Christensen to defend his assertions regarding the Dan. 8 purported DUAL MONARCHY (Ram with TWO Horns); and asked him to defend the FALSE assertion that Alexander's empire was broken between FOUR Generals, -- and even provided the names and accounts of the FIVE Generals, which endured for some 42 years; -- and @Paul Christensen RAN FROM THE DISCUSSION, and has been running ever since.

So good luck getting ANYTHING from this guy except a REPEAT PERFORMANCE.
Bobby Jo

Ya got to embrace the humor. I believe in freedom of religion so I am ok with most things.