The words "if" and "cultural limitations" are used to discredit the NT authors.
What about Jesus?
“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning God made them male and female." (Matthew 19:4)
“But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)
The objections to evolution are twofold:
1. The evidence is interpreted according to a godless dogma.
2. The Scriptural evidence, both OT & NT.
. . . .But ultimately it doesnt matter, really. Its not like God is going to quiz us before He lets us into Heaven and ask us how old the Earth is.
I wonder if God tried to explain it all and Moses was just like, "What?" That would make a great comic strip.Oh, I think the whole first chapter is actually a poetic parable. Men at the time of the writing of the Bible were quite unable to take the literal truth about the universe at the time. It was actually a great achievement of God to get His word to say so little about creation so that man's mistaken ideas of the time would not be, later, much of an impediment.
The scriptures say God doesnt change.Hello Ken.
These four accounts cannot be reconciled, Ken, each account is a different description
of the same event. Ultimately, whether there was one or two angels, whether they were
standing or sitting, is in the end, irrelevant. The Gospels are solely about Jesus Christ of
course.
Not all Biblical Christians accept that all the scripture is inerrant.
When God speaks through a prophet, that is inerrant.
When a prophet receives a vision from God, that is inerrant.
Messianic prophecies are inerrant.
When Jesus speaks, that is inerrant.
There is a vast difference between God speaking directly to us or to Israel.
And men describing what happened during Christ's life.
Right ... and we start off in the womb with gills too, don't we?
Are you sure your faith is strong enough to keep you from straying and to help you inherit eternal life??
Jesus was referring to a specific Scriptural passage in Genesis and there is no suggestion He did not believe this was factually correct. The "cultural limitations" argument just does not work when it comes to doctrinal truth. Our faith is not based on myth.Jesus was situated in the cultural limitations of the time.
I have read some of John Walton - he uses the cultural argument to make the Bible creation account into a myth.The Genesis narrative doesn't necessarily preclude evolution. I can believe in a literal Adam and still view the opening chapters of Genesis as expressed by myth (John Walton from Wheaton has a strong case for such a position).
I wonder if God tried to explain it all and Moses was just like, "What?" That would make a great comic strip.
The scriptures say God doesnt change.
So God speaks to us today the same way He did then.
I once experienced this inexplicable event. I was depressed one day and was asking God why He allows bad things to happen, and having a crisis of faith. But I said, I dont understand it, but Ill trust you. As soon as I thought that, this man tapped me on the shoulder and said he had a message from God for me. He told me God had seen my pain and I would do great things and a lot of other stuff. Then I thought in my heart, "God, im sorry. Im just so weak." The man stopped what he was saying, looked me in the eye, and said "youre strong. Gods telling me that right now." I went home immediately and wrote down the prophecy. But, it was less than an hour after it happened, but I still couldnt remember everything he said. I drew a line to indicate where I forgot what he said next.
A year later I got this out and wrote a paper on it. To my amazement, I realized I left the most important part out. Id forgotten to write about when he told me I was strong when I was thinking I was weak.
But just because I couldnt remember exactly what happened didnt mean it didnt happen or that it wasnt true or not from God.
So, I dont know why it would be any different for the people who wrote the Bible.
I dont know if the Bible contains errors or not, but honestly, I havent seen much evidence for it, and Ive looked into it. Those accounts dont seem all that contradictory to me, couldnt the angels just have been moving around?
But, whether it does or not, to me is of little import. Its like evolution:whether the Bible contains errors or the earth is billions of years old or a few thousand, God is still God, a God I know personally, and Ill still follow Him.
Jesus was referring to a specific Scriptural passage in Genesis and there is no suggestion He did not believe this was factually correct. The "cultural limitations" argument just does not work when it comes to doctrinal truth. Our faith is not based on myth.
I have read some of John Walton - he uses the cultural argument to make the Bible creation account into a myth.
Hello Ken.You're too late! Already done!! Look it up.
The modern arguments that suggest God cannot provide inerrant Scriptures for us to believe and live by is not supported by Jesus or the apostles.
Hello Jamie.I wonder if God tried to explain it all and Moses was just like, "What?" That would make a great comic strip.
The scriptures say God doesnt change.
So God speaks to us today the same way He did then.
I once experienced this inexplicable event. I was depressed one day and was asking God why He allows bad things to happen, and having a crisis of faith. But I said, I dont understand it, but Ill trust you. As soon as I thought that, this man tapped me on the shoulder and said he had a message from God for me. He told me God had seen my pain and I would do great things and a lot of other stuff. Then I thought in my heart, "God, im sorry. Im just so weak." The man stopped what he was saying, looked me in the eye, and said "youre strong. Gods telling me that right now." I went home immediately and wrote down the prophecy. But, it was less than an hour after it happened, but I still couldnt remember everything he said. I drew a line to indicate where I forgot what he said next.
A year later I got this out and wrote a paper on it. To my amazement, I realized I left the most important part out. Id forgotten to write about when he told me I was strong when I was thinking I was weak.
But just because I couldnt remember exactly what happened didnt mean it didnt happen or that it wasnt true or not from God.
So, I dont know why it would be any different for the people who wrote the Bible.
I dont know if the Bible contains errors or not, but honestly, I havent seen much evidence for it, and Ive looked into it. Those accounts dont seem all that contradictory to me, couldnt the angels just have been moving around?
But, whether it does or not, to me is of little import. Its like evolution:whether the Bible contains errors or the earth is billions of years old or a few thousand, God is still God, a God I know personally, and Ill still follow Him.
After the 6 days were over, God breathed life into the planet and made them living souls, and set the planet in orbit with the sun. Then the normal 24 hour periods began, and thats when He set Adam in the garden, and made Eve.
If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?
What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?
I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.
Well of course, just because its there, its an attachment site. But the tendons and ligaments and muscles don't need their attachment site to look like the remnant of a tail.
And another funny thing . . . . those species who still have tails don't have them, their tails stick out, you know, and don't provide that attachment point you claim to be so important.
And that doesn't bother them. Oh dear, how do they manage, without that attachment point?
Since men had no tails in recorded history including Scripture the question arises: who had tails? Apparently the coccyx is useful.Oh, you replied again with nothing but a denial! Well, I'm glad to present a little more evidence for evolution that you can deny.
You and I share a coccyx. It is clearly a remnant of a tail.
Since men had no tails in recorded history including Scripture the question arises: who had tails? Apparently the coccyx is useful.
"
In humans and other tailless primates (e.g., great apes) since Nacholapithecus (a Miocene hominoid),[5][6] the coccyx is the remnant of avestigial tail, but still not entirely useless;[7] it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.[8]Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.[8]
The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e.,defecation, continence, etc.): the levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through theanococcygeal raphe, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.[8]
Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: the anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine.[8] Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.[9] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx
So, if you were God could you have created man with one of these and animals with one too, but with different reasons in mind? To assume it got there only as a result of evolving rather than creation is pure unsupportable unbelief.
Also, your claim that I deny evolution is false. Evolution happens but it did not create us. It is after the creation fact and you have no evidence at all that it is anything more. Stop preaching demonic baseless doubt about the creator and His word here.
because walking across town makes sense, but walking across the country is impossible.
"Macro" and "micro" evolution are terms made up by YEC people. It's a goal post shift. There is no such distinction.What point were you trying to make to the person you quoted?