I think I’d be better off finding out for myself but I will give you an idea of what I meant. In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees thousands allowed themselves to be cut down rather than raise a weapon on the Sabbath. Then:
Lord of the Sabbath:
Matthew 12:3-4
Luke 6:3-4
Mark 2:25-26
The disciples break the Sabbath, the Pharisees question Jesus and he makes reference to:
I Samuel 21:1-3
There were dire consequences for David’s lying(I Samuel 22:6-23.) It was a time of immense danger for David. And he and his men were only permitted to eat the bread once the priest was assurred that they had abstained from women for three days according to law(Exodus 19:15)
I’m wondering what was Jesus saying. That the Sabbath was abrogated or no longer important? That the Pharisees were interpreting it too strictly?
I notice that in Matthew 19:16-19 Jesus lists five of the commandments as necessary to enter into eternal life - Sabbath observance left out. And in Romans 13:8-10 Paul also lists the same five but not in the same context.
I’m aware that there are a lot of different views on this and I’d probably be better off looking into it myself.
Every last syllable of the Old Testament pointed ultimately right at Jesus Christ. Same gospel for Abraham as for us. He looked forward into the shadows of promise and we look back into the light of fulfillment. Read Hebrews 11-12.
What about the sabbath? The 51st Psalm vv16-17 NASB[quote]16-For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17-The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. [/quote]The key to the whole understanding of the law and grace, including the sabbath is in these 2 verses (and other places as well). Check out Jesus’s assault on the pharisees in Matthew 23 for some more clues. Don’t trust me though. There’s nothing like having the Word come alive for yourself. Unless of course your a Ca… oh nevermind.
their cranial size keeps getting larger relative to their body…and they start developing the same spine hip configuration found in modern day humans…
the most relevant theory is that apes were forced into a savannah enviroment out of the jungle where bipedalism and brain size were traits necessarry for survival…they expeicenced many exitinction events until a supreme species eveolved…from there, i believe brain size continued to grow due to the social hierarchy that was found in human groups…and teh quest for social dominance and survival…
once we became humans, we created hammer rocks…then various blades…spears…controlling fire…always evolving…building on everything from the past…
their cranial size keeps getting larger relative to their body…and they start developing the same spine hip configuration found in modern day humans…
the most relevant theory is that apes were forced into a savannah enviroment out of the jungle where bipedalism and brain size were traits necessarry for survival…they expeicenced many exitinction events until a supreme species eveolved…from there, i believe brain size continued to grow due to the social hierarchy that was found in human groups…and teh quest for social dominance and survival…
once we became humans, we created hammer rocks…then various blades…spears…controlling fire…always evolving…building on everything from the past…
[/quote]
The fossil record is evidence - evidence that can be and is used to fit both competing models.
The human fossil record is one of THE weakest supports for the (macro) evolution theory. One who chooses to believe in the evolution model would do well to steer clear of that department when it comes to giving reasons of “why I believe.”[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m all about ring species. Great example of micro-evolution AND the inherent problems within taxonomy.
Does relatively nothing to advance the ideas of macro-e except at the hypothetical level.
Go read your Wiki link for more details.[/quote]
Oh no.
At the opposite ends of the “ring” you have two species that no longer can interbreed.
For all intents and purposes, they are different species.
What this shows, that a) creationist idea of a “species” is not as clear cut as they would like to believe and b) that you CAN observe speciation with EVERY SINGLE LINK IN BETWEEN, because they are still around.
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won’t argue that natural selection doesn’t take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism’s kind.
Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can’t occur. [b]Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real “barrier.” Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn’t supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
To say that species can not change beyond some “kind” boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis ? that’s why creationists who try to make arguments about “kinds” can’t provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a “kind” is. The differences immediately “below” the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately “above” the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line. [/b]
The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Quote all the atheist websites you want but this type of speciation is nothing more than micro-evolution. Glad you brought it up because it does NOT help your cause (and believe me, it is a cause) as much as you think, if at all.[/quote]
You are avoiding the problem.
The exact name for the problem you are avoiding is the “species problem”:
The reason why you and every other creationist avoids it is that the very moment you define “species” and therefore macroevolution you will be swamped with examples that prove beyond any doubt that you are selling snakeoil.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Joe, you don’t really understand this subject nor the competing ideas that drive it. You have faith in the one and insist on the decimation of the other at all costs. You are indeed religious about this deal and can’t see why.
Yet.[/quote]
I have faith in the one that uses clear definition and makes it know if they are of an heuristic nature and puts forth a falsifiable hypothesis.
All others, not so much, no one who searches for the truth deliberately muddies the water.
