Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2012, 08:48 PM
Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29...?hpt=hp_c2


Just found this article and thought I would share. Robertson said something rational. Has hell frozen over? Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 10:59 PM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
That's surprising indeed. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
29-11-2012, 11:10 PM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
Don't worry, he's still an idiot. He thinks that radiocarbon dating is used to date dinosaur fossils. Good luck with that. Drinking Beverage

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 11:33 PM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
LOL at

Quote:They describe the archbishop as “a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.”

Yup, that archbishop. Helluva guy. *Very* good reasons for his conclusions. *Better* than anything the scientists can come up with. Much better. What? Original paper? Well, I guess he did write it down somewhere. But he was brilliant I tell you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 06:57 AM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
I think this is the original clip:


Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 12:09 PM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
The 6 days of creation are LITERAL. So if humans according to the bible were created almost 6000 years ago, the earth is less than 6000 years old as well.
He pretty much ignored these two points, both about the days and how long ago humans were supposedly created. It wasn't James Ussher who said that, it was the bible itself which provided that info.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 12:24 PM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
(30-11-2012 12:09 PM)Vlad Wrote:  The 6 days of creation are LITERAL. So if humans according to the bible were created almost 6000 years ago, the earth is less than 6000 years old as well.
He pretty much ignored these two points, both about the days and how long ago humans were supposedly created. It wasn't James Ussher who said that, it was the bible itself which provided that info.

Well, there are several things to look at here.

Literalist will point to 2 Peter 3:8.

ECs and TCs will point to ANE culture, myths, and writing styles that render this point moot.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 03:07 PM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
(30-11-2012 12:24 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 12:09 PM)Vlad Wrote:  The 6 days of creation are LITERAL. So if humans according to the bible were created almost 6000 years ago, the earth is less than 6000 years old as well.
He pretty much ignored these two points, both about the days and how long ago humans were supposedly created. It wasn't James Ussher who said that, it was the bible itself which provided that info.

Well, there are several things to look at here.

Literalist will point to 2 Peter 3:8.

ECs and TCs will point to ANE culture, myths, and writing styles that render this point moot.

If you're going to use that, atleast point to the original place where that verse appears (since Jews don't give a shit about the NT, yet some still claim that the days aren't literal), because IIRC that verse first appeared in one of the psalms.
Anyhow, the Bible had made it pretty clear that the days are literal since it talks about a new day coming after mornings and evenings.

Sure, the word used for "day" is "yom", and it has other meanings (as in, "in those days..."), but only when it comes in plural form and not when it preceds a number ("Yom rishon"/"yom ehad" = first day). That's another point against that interpretation of the days not being literal. In no point in the OT the word "yom" is used in the context of times and ages.

Another point is the fact that God commanded to observe the seventh day, just as he took a rest on it. If it wasn't an actual day, then there's no point in such a command. Some people would say that the first four days until the creation of the sun and the moon, but that would be further butchering of the meaning of the text, since it would make even less sense for God to command to observe the seventh day if it was actually only the fourth day since the day of the creation of the sun and the moon.
So this interpretation is completely unsupported, while all the evidence point towards the days being literal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 03:53 PM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
(30-11-2012 03:07 PM)Vlad Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 12:24 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Well, there are several things to look at here.

Literalist will point to 2 Peter 3:8.

ECs and TCs will point to ANE culture, myths, and writing styles that render this point moot.

If you're going to use that, atleast point to the original place where that verse appears (since Jews don't give a shit about the NT, yet some still claim that the days aren't literal), because IIRC that verse first appeared in one of the psalms.
Anyhow, the Bible had made it pretty clear that the days are literal since it talks about a new day coming after mornings and evenings.

Sure, the word used for "day" is "yom", and it has other meanings (as in, "in those days..."), but only when it comes in plural form and not when it preceds a number ("Yom rishon"/"yom ehad" = first day). That's another point against that interpretation of the days not being literal. In no point in the OT the word "yom" is used in the context of times and ages.

Another point is the fact that God commanded to observe the seventh day, just as he took a rest on it. If it wasn't an actual day, then there's no point in such a command. Some people would say that the first four days until the creation of the sun and the moon, but that would be further butchering of the meaning of the text, since it would make even less sense for God to command to observe the seventh day if it was actually only the fourth day since the day of the creation of the sun and the moon.
So this interpretation is completely unsupported, while all the evidence point towards the days being literal.
Last I checked Christians aren't Jews. I'm talking modern day literalist who used the 2 Peter verse.

And don't even start with literalistic interpretations during by Jews during the OT if you're not aware of ANE culture, myths, and historicity.

This is a whole new animal and a wholly different way of interpreting Genesis - a way that was common to the Jews of that time.

Genesis was written as ancient cosmology. ANE writing blended myth and history together into a sort of "based on true events" movie. Many things, although written literally, weren't meant to be taken literally and were, in fact, hyperbolic because of the writing style.

This can be seen in EVERY ANE writings... as well as EVERY ANE culture. Moreover, many ANE writings share the same themes, characters, plots, and events.

Genesis was written as hyperbolic fantasy but written as an authority from YHWH.

As the Jewish culture evolved, Jews recognized this and understood this. They didn't believe the literal creation events of Genesis. Yes, they took literal pieces from it and applied it (day of rest), but they never believe in a literal 7 day creation because of their understanding of the story.

In fact, literalism is fairly new to Christianity... much like dispensationalism. Although popular, it doesn't represent traditional beliefs relative to the existence of the OT and NT.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 03:59 PM
RE: Pat Robertson doesn't believe in creationism
Pat Robertson needs to stay relevant, and keep the buckaroonies coming in.
It's all a set-up for the next GOP runners to move away from the fundies, IMHO.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: