Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

[Targaryen]

Sounds an awful lot like pantheism to me...:o

Sounds more like you jumping through hoops to make your faulty conclusions work.

 

[Time4Truth]

Sounds more like you jumping through hoops to make your faulty conclusions work.

Nah, I just read Genesis for what it says.. I don't add my own interpretation.

Says 7 days, I take that as 7 days..


Says a flood, ark, ect.. I take that to mean what it says...


No need to complicate it by adding a new understanding that didn't exist until the 1800's by a man who wasn't even a Christian..

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Sounds an awful lot like pantheism to me...:o

That's not even close to the definition of pantheism. I'm not saying that everything is God. I'm saying that all natural processes involve God's movement of time from one moment to the next through the divine linkage of cause and effect. Without God, everything grinds to a halt.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If you were gonna pick a few known discrepancies and use that to support your argument, why not list them all, because you missed a bunch more..

The subject was still fulfilled, just the way it was documented seemed a little inconsistent..

None of which affect doctrine in any way..

We could speculate all day on what the soldiers with Paul actually encountered but the end result is the same.

Christ.


You would have to match Genesis allegorically to evolution and abiogenesis and that my friend would be absurd..

1. Not talking about allegories.

2. I know they don't affect doctrine. I'm not an atheist. I'm not trying to tear down Christian doctrine.

3. The point stands: These three examples (and I'm not going to list them all or look them up for you) demonstrate that the Scriptures have internal contradictions, which you claimed they do not have. Now, I don't think you need to resort to a lower view of Scripture in order to demonstrate that Genesis 1 is obviously and clearly not meant to be taken literally (as indicated in the text itself when we ask the text, rather than assuming of the text, what genre it is). But since you claimed that Scripture has no contradictions, I thought I'd point out three. The ball's in your court to argue that they aren't.

 

[seashale76]

I just read the OP. There's something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing. If you're focused on this issue, you're not focused on what is most important. God created the world. That's something all professing Christians believe in. We had death through Adam, but we have life through Christ. Your topic is not important. At all.

 

[Time4Truth]

1. Not talking about allegories.

2. I know they don't affect doctrine. I'm not an atheist. I'm not trying to tear down Christian doctrine.

3. The point stands: These three examples (and I'm not going to list them all or look them up for you) demonstrate that the Scriptures have internal contradictions, which you claimed they do not have. Now, I don't think you need to resort to a lower view of Scripture in order to demonstrate that Genesis 1 is obviously and clearly not meant to be taken literally (as indicated in the text itself when we ask the text, rather than assuming of the text, what genre it is). But since you claimed that Scripture has no contradictions, I thought I'd point out three. The ball's in your court to argue that they aren't.

The effect of the discrepancies is nill to me, they do nothing but show the humanity of those who scribed and collected the cannon..


The end results are the same regardless...

We are talking about Holy Writ.. Not a loose doctrine someone who isn't even saved wrote.


The opposition in those verses is logistic for the most part.


Evolution has plenty of men with Doctorates who flat out reject evolution on the basis of no evidence.

That's a direct contradiction.

How many Christians do you know that don't believe in Jesus?

We have the truth in Christ.


They have "science falsely so called"..


I never bought into evolution before or after I was a Christian...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The effect of the discrepancies is nill to me, they do nothing but show the humanity of those who scribed and collected the cannon..


The end results are the same regardless...

We are talking about Holy Writ.. Not a loose doctrine someone who isn't even saved wrote.


The opposition in those verses is logistic for the most part.


Evolution has plenty of men with Doctorates who flat out reject evolution on the basis of no evidence.

That's a direct contradiction.

How many Christians do you know that don't believe in Jesus?

We have the truth in Christ.


They have "science falsely so called"..


I never bought into evolution before or after I was a Christian...

So if you don't mind that Scripture isn't 100% accurate in places where it really doesn't matter, but a literal reading of Genesis 1 really matters to you, that begs the question:

Why does a literal reading of Genesis 1 matter so much to you?

 

[Time4Truth]

So if you don't mind that Scripture isn't 100% accurate in places where it really doesn't matter, but a literal reading of Genesis 1 really matters to you, that begs the question:

Why does a literal reading of Genesis 1 matter so much to you?

The discrepancies you are regarding are of little impact to the corresponding event.


The event happened, regardless of how it was documented..


If the disparity among evolutionists was that miniscule, your case would be much stronger.


Again, you have wackos like Dawkins, and then you have guys in the dirt saying wait a minute, this makes no sense..



Quite a stark contrast in what you are trying to imply...

 

[Time4Truth]

So if you don't mind that Scripture isn't 100% accurate in places where it really doesn't matter, but a literal reading of Genesis 1 really matters to you, that begs the question:

Why does a literal reading of Genesis 1 matter so much to you?

Why does the NT reference the creation account, which is reiterated all throughout scripture?

Wild goose chase?


God just likes affirming mysteries that we have to cross reference with what men believe?

Let God be true.. That's my philosophy, its simple.

 

[Tzaousios]

This isn't my first rodeo..

If he believes the Bible is in error, he can make his case, and Ill refute it.

This short little statement contains two logical fallacies: 1.) it is based upon a loaded premise (i.e. "If he believes the Bible is in error" = "when did he stop beating his wife lately"); and 2.) he does not have to prove the negative upon which it was premised.

 

[Tzaousios]

Me thinks he googles "bible contradicts itself" and therefore is contending that the Bible is not reliable.

Reduction to absurdity and probably an ad hominem to boot.

 

[Targaryen]

Reduction to absurdity and probably an ad hominem to boot.

When all else fails in other words, resort to the above.

Well at least certain ones do.

 

[Melethiel]

Abiogenesis does NOT mean "not created by life", vis a vis God. It just means life arising from non life. It states nothing about any supernatural causation whatsoever, because science is not equipped to speak about the supernatural.

 

[Time4Truth]

Abiogenesis does NOT mean "not created by life", vis a vis God. It just means life arising from non life. It states nothing about any supernatural causation whatsoever, because science is not equipped to speak about the supernatural.

A=No
Bio=Life
Genesis=Created

Lets play another word game.

Atheist

A=No
Theist=Theology



See how that works

One more.

Amillennial

A=No
Millennial=Millennium

 

[Targaryen]

A=No
Bio=Life
Genesis=Created

Lets play another word game.

Atheist

A=No
Theist=Theology



See how that works

One more.

Amillennial

A=No
Millennial=Millennium

And more ad hominems. No point made, just more ad hominems.

 

[Time4Truth]

This short little statement contains two logical fallacies: 1.) it is based upon a loaded premise (i.e. "If he believes the Bible is in error" = "when did he stop beating his wife lately"); and 2.) he does not have to prove the negative upon which it was premised.

He can handle himself.


All this is a distraction to avoid the actual thing he believes, which is that Genesis is just a collection of words essentially with no meaning.


However, the prophecies and events are detailed throughout scripture rather excessively, lending more credence to Genesis than just some collection of "poems".


We aren't in the dark ages anymore.

 

[Time4Truth]

And more ad hominems. No point made, just more ad hominems.

I just gave here the literal definition of what those words mean.


If that is what quantifies as "ad hominem" around here then so be it.

 

[Targaryen]

We aren't in the dark ages anymore.

Considering your lack of scientific understand or comprehension of scientific terms is lacking, your theology seems rather dark age.

 

[Time4Truth]

Abiogenesis does NOT mean "not created by life", vis a vis God. It just means life arising from non life. It states nothing about any supernatural causation whatsoever, because science is not equipped to speak about the supernatural.

God is life.


God created life.


Abiogenesis is the theory outside of a creator.


You are the only person Ive met that has challenged this.


There are two possibilities for life.

Only 2.

1. Abiogenesis
2. Creator


That is why scientists are eager to see life form on its own, so far, its never happened.

Gods not going to let himself be refuted by his own creation.

 

[Time4Truth]

Considering your lack of scientific understand or comprehension of scientific terms is lacking, your theology seems rather dark age.

Keep em coming.


I enjoy the subjective rhetoric.