DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I did provide a reference. Genesis 3. Did you want me to be more specific as to where in Genesis 3?  If so, I would be glad to do so.

Sorry, but you don't appear to be very bright.  You quote me giving a reference then try to invalidate me by suggesting I didn't provide a reference.  To that I say...

Derp!

You did not. You CLAIM that Genesis references something scholars KNOW was not the understanding of what "prophesy" and it was is a fail.
Re-referencing Genesis is bogus. You must reference a recognized scholar of Archaic Hebrew for a reference to be valid. You don't seem to be very capable in this debate thing. You also seem to have very very little background in the Bible or Hebrew culture.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/robe...html#proof

"Whence the Proof from Prophecy?
In all this, there is nothing of the apologetical appeal to public, long-standing messianic claims. Matthew was not aiming at the same thing subsequent Christian apologists were. Why the change? Why did apologists, ancient (I would include Luke) and modern, shift over to an incredible appeal to Old Testament proof texts as if the Christian reinterpretation represented the original intentions of the prophets to predict Jesus? I think it is because very shortly, the vast majority of Christians, and Christian scholars, were Greek-speaking Gentiles who were accustomed to reading only the Greek Septuagint and reading it with only a Christian application in mind. They viewed the Old Testament dispensation simply as the time of waiting for the Christ, and the Old Testament characters as pretty much "Christians before Christ" (to borrow Justin Martyr's term for Socrates and other Greek spokesmen for the Logos). They read the Old Testament anachronistically, made it into a Christian book, and began to suppose that Isaiah had nothing in mind other than predicting Jesus Christ. Here and there one catches an early Christian voice protesting that the Old Testament author could not have had Jesus in mind, e.g., Marcion of Pontus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who held out for a literal, non-messianic reading of most or all of the Old Testament, but these, obviously, are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Even if most did read the Old Testament as a Christian document even on the surface, Christian hermeneutics did not theoretically demand this. Most exegetes held in common with Origen some sort of multi-sense hermeneutic, whereby the surface, literal sense was often not even the most important one. One could still find the messianic sense in one of these esoteric levels of meaning, and many of the supposed "messianic" predictions that Hal Lindsay and others today seem to take as the surface meaning were relegated to secondary, non-literal interpretations by the ancients. Where the crisis really came was at the time of the Protestant Reformation, when to rule out Catholic appeals to non-literal meanings on behalf of the papacy or the sale of indulgences, Martin Luther rejected, on principle, any but the straightforward, surface sense of any text as recoverable by means of the grammatico-historical method. At the same time, it did not occur to him to break with traditional appeals to Old Testament prophecy to prove that Christians were right and Jews were wrong about Jesus. This is what created the intolerable bind in which fundamentalist apologists find themselves in today (though they seem oblivious to the difficulty, one suspects because they share the same merely opportunistic interest that ancient Christians had in the Old Testament as a source of Christian proof texts)."

infidels.org?  Oh, because that's a completely objective site?  No thanks.  Might as well send me a link to a scientology site.  May get bits and pieces of facts, but too much nonsense to sift through.

Either I "did" or "did not" provide a reference in my statement, as per your accusation that "I did not."  If you did not believe the reference was sufficient for your understanding, then you could've asked for more, but that doesn't mean I didn't provide a reference.   Your disapproval of said reference is a separate issue though.

If I said you did not provide a reference in your last post, you would probably tell me that I was wrong because you cited a link to infidels.org.  My disapproval of said site as a source is a separate issue.

And with that....DERP!