Guardianista
Newbie
- Jun 14, 2009
- 42
- 23
- 74
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
- Oct 28, 2006
- 26,787
- 12,447
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
This is an interesting interpretive proposition, PrincetoneGuy, but could you help me understand better precisely how Luke specifies a more global inference in his articulation of Jesus' Wilderness Temptation? I'm not clear about where or how the imputation for a spherical earth is being stated by Luke, even in contrast to Matthew's own narrative.
Thanks!
Upvote
0
Luke does not “specify” a more global inference in his articulation of Jesus' Wilderness Temptation. Having an excellent Greek education, Luke knew that the earth is spherical and that the vantage point from even a very high mountain would not allow Jesus to see what was over the horizon. Matthew, on the other hand, having only a Jewish education, believed that the earth is flat and that the vantage point from a very high mountain would allow Jesus to see what was on the entire surface of the earth. Therefore, in his gospel which is largely based upon Mathew’s gospel*, Luke leaves out the “very high mountain” vantage point.
*Possibly as found in the Q Source (Quelle).
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 26,787
- 12,447
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm not sure that hermeneutically your explanation about "Luke" is fully justified since it is essentially an argument from silence with no attending evidential assurance for Luke's actual educational background, other than what is indirectly at hand in our discernment about the quality of his Grecian prose and style. However, while we don't know that "Luke" is the same person as Lucius of Cyrene in Acts 13:1, I suppose it is within the realm of plausibility that it was the same person, and if it was, knowing that Cyrene was a city with reasonably strong educational and medical training for the 1st century, then we may also surmise that "Luke" could have had a more robust education, with attending writing and historical skills, and he would have known the implications of the Earth's spherical shape, as you've stated.
So, I guess I'll agree with you that Luke's emendation to the Temptation account of Christ could signal that he was implying an awareness of a spherical Earth. I just think it's underdetermined, but it's still reasonable to conclude.
Thanks for your response. You've given me something to think more deeply about on this matter of literary form.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,771
- 288
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
My point is if you accept the conventions to get to a result then you get a consensus on the result....even though the conventions are not facts.
Conventions aren't bad - they acutally allow us to make conclusions and to garner support (and a consensus).
Upvote
0
Guardianista
Newbie
- Jun 14, 2009
- 42
- 23
- 74
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,771
- 288
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes I accept as fact that genetics change over time...and that natural selection occurs. Big people produce big kids. But your genetic makeup is limited to what God created for a human being. Distinctly different from what the genetic makeup is limited to for a spider.
Upvote
0
Guardianista
Newbie
- Jun 14, 2009
- 42
- 23
- 74
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Greens
In short, and in plain English, you're a creationist. We got there in the end!
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,771
- 288
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Why didn't you just ask me that? Of course I'm a creationist! The truth is a good thing! Creation was 6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete - exactly as Recorded History supports.
Upvote
0
FredVB
Regular Member
- Mar 11, 2010
- 5,305
- 1,087
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I see some very sure of themselves and their position. I wonder if I could be that sure. I am most sure that God made it all. From revelation I see God did not take millions of years to have life here.
Upvote
0
FredVB
Regular Member
- Mar 11, 2010
- 5,305
- 1,087
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
From what is shown in the revelation God made all the life which all life on earth now is descended from in one week, this should be thousands of years ago but not millions of years, but I cannot insist on how many thousands of years ago it would have been, I do not have full certainty. Maybe there would be no gaps in the genealogy that have some determining how long ago it was. Yet there are gaps which I see can be known. See the genealogy of Jesus Christ in the gospel account from Matthew, it is certainly with gaps. And look at the genealogy of Moses where it written, and it is supposed to be from when Levi went with all the family into Egypt to Moses who led the people who were the descendants out from Egypt.
Upvote
0
I voted "yes" a literal 7 days of creation with the following Biblical basis below.
If a "day" interpreted as thousand of years, we left every winged bird and all its kind created in the fifth day, don't know what their food be for a thousand years as God informed His creations including every birds in the sky on the sixth day.
Following verses proves that the 24 hr interpretation of "day" is very reasonable.
Gen 1:21 And God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Gen 1:29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
Gen 1:30 and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
If a "day" interpreted as thousand of years, we left every winged bird and all its kind created in the fifth day, don't know what their food be for a thousand years as God informed His creations including every birds in the sky on the sixth day.
Following verses proves that the 24 hr interpretation of "day" is very reasonable.
Gen 1:21 And God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Gen 1:29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
Gen 1:30 and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Upvote
0
John Bauer
Reformed
- Jul 21, 2022
- 609
- 408
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
There are lots of creationists here. It's just that their fellow Christians define them out of existence, like the opening post did. I am an old-earth creationist who accepts evolutionary biology. Let me repeat that: I am an old-earth creationist.
But many people define creationism in young-earth terms, effectively defining old-earthers like me out of existence.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
