So can the Genesis be infallible and inerrant history?

[Theodor1]

Creationism forces itself onto the physical world with such arrogance that no matter what evidence is brought forth ( in accordance to the rules governing science) it just shrugs it off and demands for more evidence.

I assume you mean YEC. The interesting thing is that YEC make some of the best evolutionists because the theory of evolution is needed to explain how God could have repopulated the world in a short period of time.

 

[mzungu]

I assume you mean YEC. The interesting thing is that YEC make some of the best evolutionists because the theory of evolution is needed to explain how God could have repopulated the world in a short period of time.

murder by death - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

Wasn't he the one who feared for his life and denied Jesus 3 times? So much for willing to pay the price in holiness. Yet the bible has included the gospel according to Peter and discarded the gospel according to Mary Magdalene and Thomas and many others as well.

Weird, isn't it?

 

[mzungu]

Weird, isn't it?

Not so much weird as pertaining to the times when women were no better than property and men who doubted were outcasts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not so much weird as pertaining to the times when women were no better than property and men who doubted were outcasts.

Perhaps that's because they interpreted the Scriptures the way you do?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sinners wrote the Bible, and they weren't shy to include their particular sins in their writings for all generations to see.

So much for verbal plenary inspiration, then -- nice to see you've abandoned that canard.

Unlike scientists today, who won't even admit they are sinners.

Scientists admit mistakes all the time -- what are you on about?

 

[AV1611VET]

So much for verbal plenary inspiration,

WOW -- and you're a literary professor?

Do you know what verbal plenary inspiration is?

 

[TLK Valentine]

WOW -- and you're a literary professor?

Do you know what verbal plenary inspiration is?

You mean you've been explaining it wrong each of the 24,832 times you've gone on about it?

Ok, AV -- once more form the top -- and do try to get it right this time...

 

[mzungu]

Perhaps that's because they interpreted the Scriptures the way you do?

As far as I am aware the Bible has many references to women such as not allowing them to preach in church, or to obey their husbands or in many cases where rape is allowed etc. I will be interested to hear from you on such matters.

1st Timothy 2:11-15

Eph.5:22-33; Col.3:18-4:1; 1Pet.3:7

http://www.openbible.info/topics/rape

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually lots of people wrote the Bible over the best part of a thousand years. No particular person wrote it. Paul wrote some of the letters in the NT. Various prophets wrote some books in the OT. The authors of other books are disputed.

No one man wrote it.

I said man as in 'mankind' , not a man.

I think the Koran falls under your implicit definition of a great work more so than does the Bible.

True. The Koran is a great work of man. The bible is the work of God.
]

Getting back to your assertion. Why would it make so sense for humans to have written the books of the Bible? Much of the NT is just a collection of letters, written by Paul to instruct others in his growing churches. Paul's letters are just that. They are Paul's letters. So I don't know what your point is.

The bible was written for the church, a very small group of believers. The great works, including the classic mythologies, were written for everyone, and accepted by most everyone. The bible asks the question, "Who has believed our words..."? The answer of course is, very few. Most regard the bible as nonsense. Why would a group of fairly intelligent people conspire over thousands of years to write a book of nonsense?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Huh..?

Why would Man write the Greek, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu, Islamic and various indigenous mythologies, if their particular gods didn't exist?..?

Their 'gods' do exist. The bible calls them collectively the 'god of this world'.

 

[frogman2x]

And, one of the main reasons I became an atheist, was a thorough review and investigation of the bible.

Thanks for confoming the accurcy of one verse in the Bible: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised(I Cor 1:14)

To me, the bible itself, is not a friend to folks who claim the God of the bible exists.

In what way? It promises a way to heaven and how to get there. What more do you want to show not only friendship but love?

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for confoming the accurcy of one verse in the Bible: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised(I Cor 1:14)


Happy to be of service!

In what way? It promises a way to heaven and how to get there. What more do you want to show not only friendship but love?

Because it makes promises (and also a lot of threats) it makes it accurate? If that is your compass, while ignoring everything else, then have at it.

 

[EternalDragon]

The church? Uh...yes. our government? Uh...yes.

Common moral rules. What does keeping the Sabbath have to do with morality?

Would that be the same morality demonstrated by a god who punishes all generations for the sin of one man? Despite the fact that he specifically and specially created an Adam who would fall.

Actually you only have the sin nature. You are actually judged for your own individual sins.

God created man with free will. He had the potential to fall, yes. As any being does with free will. One third of the angels followed Lucifer. The others did not.

Just as you have the choice right now, today, to follow God/Jesus or not. To repent of your sins and be forgiven....or not. It's your free choice.

 

[Doveaman]

Creationism forces itself onto the physical world with such arrogance that no matter what evidence is brought forth ( in accordance to the rules governing science) it just shrugs it off

We creationists believe in miraculous events such as the virgin birth, water becoming wine, the resurrection, etc.

The problem is that the physical evidence (the physical facts) surrounding the miraculous events are not always consistent with the events themselves, so if we simply rely on the physical facts alone we will often come to the wrong conclusion as to what actually happened.

Case in point, Daniel's three friends surviving the fire was a miraculous event, but the physical facts surrounding that event suggest they were never in a fire:

"The fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them." - (Dan 3:27).

If we focus on these physical facts alone (like scientists do) we are more likely to conclude that the men were never in a fire even though they were, so the physical facts in this case would be best ignored in order to arrive at the truth.

 

[CabVet]

We creationists believe in miraculous events such as the virgin birth, water becoming wine, the resurrection, etc.

Yet, you don't see creation as a miraculous event. Water becoming wine does not invalidate physics. Jesus walking on water does not invalidate gravity. A virgin birth and resurrection do not invalidate biology. But somehow, Genesis 1 invalidates evolution. So much for consistency.

The problem is that the physical evidence (the physical facts) surrounding the miraculous events are not always consistent with the events themselves, so if we simply rely on the physical facts alone we will often come to the wrong conclusion as to what actually happened.

Or didn't happen.

Case in point, Daniel's three friends surviving the fire was a miraculous event, but the physical facts surrounding that event suggest they were never in a fire:

"The fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them." - (Dan 3:27).

If we focus on these physical facts alone (like scientists do) we are more likely to conclude that the men were never in a fire even though they were, so the physical facts in this case would be best ignored in order to arrive at the truth.

So, fire does not burn people, therefore combustion is false!

 

[EternalDragon]

Yet, you don't see creation as a miraculous event. Water becoming wine does not invalidate physics. Jesus walking on water does not invalidate gravity. A virgin birth and resurrection do not invalidate biology. But somehow, Genesis 1 invalidates evolution. So much for consistency.

Not many creationists would deny that natural selection creates variety in a creatures and that species can change to suit their environment. That wolves can become poodles or that crows and pelicans come from the same original bird kind.

Genesis does confirm evolution. Just not the miraculous, unconfirmed Darwinian Evolution you have faith in. The supernatural force that creates and builds complex features such as motors, blood clotting, wings, navigation abilities, gears, etc. in nature. From simple to complex. The reverse of what we actually observe in nature.

 

[CabVet]

Not many creationists would deny that natural selection creates variety in a creatures and that species can change to suit their environment. That wolves can become poodles or that crows and pelicans come from the same original bird kind.

Ok.

Genesis does confirm evolution.

No, it does not.

Just not the miraculous, unconfirmed Darwinian Evolution you have faith in.

Evolution is only "miraculous" for those who don't understand it.

The supernatural force that creates and builds complex features such as motors, blood clotting, wings, navigation abilities, gears, etc. in nature. From simple to complex. The reverse of what we actually observe in nature.

More empty assertions. Are you ever going to post something with substance? Or are you just going to continue posting empty and baseless denial statements?

 

[lasthero]

The reverse of what we actually observe in nature.

Incorrect. For instance, the oldest bat fossils show the capability of flight - but no potential for sonar. There was a time when bats couldn't employ the sonar they're known for today; it developed over time, after they acquired flight, through evolution.

As it turns out, this was a prediction of evolution - it was long believed that primitive bats would have to show either flight or echolocation, not both at the same time. And that is exactly what we found.

 

[Doveaman]

Yet, you don't see creation as a miraculous event.

I do.

Water becoming wine does not invalidate physics. Jesus walking on water does not invalidate gravity. A virgin birth and resurrection do not invalidate biology. But somehow, Genesis 1 invalidates evolution. So much for consistency.

Comparing evolution theory to physics, gravity and biology is a really bad comparison. Surely you can do better!

Or didn't happen.

You have to believe miracles didn’t happen in order to make sense of your science. I don’t have that problem.

So, fire does not burn people, therefore combustion is false!

If only I could read your mind, it would really help me to understand what you are trying to say here.