- Mar 28, 2018
- 2,219
- 1,358
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Well, this did not help you much.
And nothing you have said has helped in the conversation it's self.
Upvote
0
Well, this did not help you much.
Again, the study must be peer-reviewed by another scientist and after its published, all scientists around the world expect to get the same results when they will do the same experiment, in their work.And i am here to report, there all lies, there are no real teams, just team members who are in this lie together.
Unless you do the test your self, and see the results your self, I would not follow these liars.
They do not believe in God, but you believe them????
This is in fact the 'fallen' condition of mankind in operation. The irony is that this tendency is very effectively brought out in the Adam and Eve story. It comes naturally to us 'fallen' human beings, to deny responsibility, blame others for our disobedience and hide from the TRUTH as He walks in the garden of our lives.
.
Because you say "its a lie" to everything, without knowing, without checking.
Again, the study must be peer-reviewed by another scientist and after its published
You imagine science to be some kind of talking, only.
How did mankind aquire this fallen state?
No, none I ever seen reported.
By the way, "there" is the same as They're,
their is the correct word, thanks
the creation account undeniably has a lot of parallels and metaphors, and the text itself has inconsistencies like light coming before the sun. The creation account is similar to the Egyptian creation myth and given the influence the Egyptians had on the Israelites this is no surprise.That makes Eve NOT really created from Adam's bone...how?
You quoted Eph 2. "following their own natural inclination, which is SIN."Natural consequence of deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil, and regarding our own 'knowledge' to be superior to God's wisdom. As soon as we were able to 'think' we were able to think 'wrong' things and do 'wrong' things, excusing ourselves or accusing others on the basis of our own understanding of 'right' and 'wrong' rather than God's definition of 'right' and 'wrong'. Those who know nothing of God's definition, are naturally without God in the world, Eph.2:12, following their own natural inclination, which is SIN. It is the Holy Spirit who puts us right on these matters, not our own ideas of right and wrong.
And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. John 16:8-11
.
the creation account undeniably has a lot of parallels and metaphors, and the text itself has inconsistencies like light coming before the sun. The creation account is similar to the Egyptian creation myth and given the influence the Egyptians had on the Israelites this is no surprise.
and you have a problem with reconciling a creation account inconsistency into a metaphor from inside a literalist vacuum.When one studies scripture some of the so called inconsistencies go away. Here you have a problem with the light before the sun. Can it be answered? Yes. What was that light, the "let there be light" light? Was it sunlight? Obviously not.
Rev 21:23 may hold that answer when it says "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb."
Who's they?They have to make Genesis a parable. They also need to do away with the fall.
Nothing inconsistent about earth not needing the sun in the past or future. All that may be inconsistent inside your head is how God could arrange light here before the sun was made. Piece o cake.the creation account undeniably has a lot of parallels and metaphors, and the text itself has inconsistencies like light coming before the sun.
I suppose you could say Jesus was similar also, unless you looked closer and knew what you were talking about.The creation account is similar to the Egyptian creation myth and given the influence the Egyptians had on the Israelites this is no surprise.
Actually his task was to set them free from bondage for the most part.The task of Moses (through divine authority) was to unite Isreal and de-paganize them because clearly, they were theologically messed up.
Other words are unbelief and rejection of Scripture.using an existing account that perhaps already had wide acceptance and redeeming it to show God as the only source behind all things is not so far fetched and is going to be a more productive way to unite people. it's call contextualization.
God doesn't use that so called logic. He calls it foolishness.What is important in the text is what the point it's trying to make not what necessarily the words say and this is consistent in hebraic block logic. This type of logic is when ideas are grouped in separate blocks of information which do not have to agree with each other (for example light created before the sun) but have a point to make and it is the point that is most important but the information that is used to build the point can be somewhat fluid and does not have to be measured by science or by anything measurable.
Says you, who has not the smallest clue.The point of the creation account is not a 6-day creation it's that God is the source of all life and this is revealed through 7 days.
The Almighty wasted words describing how He did it? Good luck with that.To focus on the surface details as literal is not the point.
If God says He did it one way and you interpret things to mean another way altogether, that is important.how they are revealed and the language it uses is important but if its literal or not is not important, only that God did it all.
God never wrote it for us? Jesus seems to disagree.This an example of the space of those who disagree with a literal interpretation. It's not about voiding God's word it's about discovering it's original context to an ancient audience and what meaning the information the account is made up with has and also what the main message of the account is.
If your scope does not have agreement with God, better lose your scope.Under this scope, is Woman created by the bone of Adam?
Says who??? Maybe He just wanted us to rest assured He can do anything and loves us and is the real creator etc?What is the underlying message of this information? Is it the literal information that is being valued or what that information points to? What does it point to? It could be to establish the leadership of man over women and providing a divine account like this ordains it.
Don't blame folks for having some connection to truth, or concern about it.This is eastern philosophy and still how the east functions in many ways. everything in the west is literal and it has foundational values build on being literal like "I did not tell a lie, I cut down the cherry tree" these are innate values of western logic but eastern logic would have a different way of telling that story.
God's word can't be changed like your history.What is more important is how is shows honour not what actually happen, Washington cutting down a tree is not an act of honour to him or to his family, so the account could be changed to tell the same story but in a way to establish glory or honour to his family and it may be embellished to accomplish this goal such as inserting a supernatural occurrence as to why the tree was cut down. But it's lying right? not really, remember the story of Washington cutting down a tree is fabricated and never happened so there is no truth in it no matter how it's told but how it's told shows the values of the culture.
Like how God got women on the planet!Eve being created out of the bone of Adam shows something,
You miss the point when you spiritualize it all away, and reject the plain reality of what the bible says, and try to turn it into fables, like science!everything created in 6 days and God resting on the 7 shows something, but I think we missed the point when all we can see is the literal surface meaning.
You shouldn't use or rely on the Bible with determining, answering, or connecting with science. The word of the Almighty should not be used as a bridge or a scope to whatever science says. When you actually try to do that, you end up making/showing contradiction between science and God which makes the "word of the Almighty" looked fake because of scientific proof and reason.Why would the word of the Almighty need some bridge? All that remains is to check how well 'science' did in it's origin explanations. We can grade them.
The beginning is unknown. We are just simply told the main point, which is God designed everything.. whether it was through the big bang, or evolution, or whatever is the job of science.Great. So the beginning is known.
No, there are no details given. The writers of the Bible had no concept of things such as electricity, planets, continents or anything that we have known to be fact today. They where inspired by the Holy Spirit but they where not given such supreme academic knowledge of everything.The details we are given should not be despised and rejected.
We don't know. There is more evidence supporting the theory of evolution and what we were prior to what we evolved to now. Genesis doesn't state anything in support or in opposition to evolution or the "proto-monkey" if you will because the Bible is not a science book.Right, Eve was not spawned by some proto monkey or whatever, but deliberately and wonderfully made from a part of the already created man.
Science is truth as well, but i know you being the typical devout christian will object to that. Science just takes time, study, experimentation to confirm what is true. Does this lessen the credibility of the Bible, no; It should not. However when you do try to use the Bible for scientific clarification and confirmation, this is when you are lessening the credibility of the Bible.It is truth, which SCIENCE IS NOT!!!!
I agree.Who's they?
The most ancient understanding of Genesis is that it is literally true history. Jesus said both Genesis chapters 1 & 2 were literally both true. The most ancient views on Genesis completely rule out parables and allegories. Everything in Genesis is believed to be literally true. It was only during the evolutionary synthesis that we arrive to the lie that Genesis is to be understood as a parable or allegory. But these theories come from atheists who are refuted by the most ancient sources out there.
Christians never listen to modern lies. We all know there are atheists who want to make our faith disappear. We know they lie which is why we hold atheists down to the oldest understanding of Genesis, especially Jesus Who said both Genesis 1 & 2 are absolutely true.
Was the Sabbath day command a literal day? Same Hebrew word. All these modern ideas are rejected by ancient tradition. Ancient tradition also says the Gospel of Matthew was written before Mark and yet somehow this lie that Mark was the first written Gospel is believed by so many Christians and its not true.You will run into such questions as long as you insist on taking every verse of the bible literally. The truth Genesis is intended to convey is that God brought into existence all that exists. No, it wasn't in 7 literal days. No, it wasn't from Adam's rib. If you dwell on the specifics of this allegorical story, instead of asking what truths this story was meant to convey, you miss the whole point.
Total waste of time. Anyone with a clear thinking mind can read Scripture and know for certain that Genesis was meant to be taken literally. Jesus said it was literal, too. But some people got an ego to invest in and lies to entertain. But nobody serious believes them.I agree.
Theo-Evos need to make Genesis a parable, allegorical or a myth to force it to conform to evolutionism.