- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,751
- 52,533
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ya ... it's called verbal plenary inspiration.
(Just in case you don't know why you're confused.)
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.
Ya ... it's called verbal plenary inspiration.I just love how god refers to himself in the third person in G1.
I never did believe in gods in the first placeI gave up believing in gods nearly 40 years ago and am not competent to argue about such matters.
I don't think it matters what the errors are or how big they are @o_mlly just needs errors to devalue evolution. It appears that he believes that by cutting down evolution he enhances his peculiar beliefs.I grant that you have not claimed that the planet is only a few thousand years old, but you appear to be saying here that there are significant errors in the ages obtained for rocks. How large do you think these errors are? Do you think, for example, that the age of the beginning of the Cambrian period was only 500 million years rather than the generally accepted age of 542 million years, or do you think that the true age was only about 5 million years? How large, in your opinion, do the errors in age have to be to vitiate the fossil record as evidence for evolution?
If you google on 'geological time scale' you will obtain about 121 million results; the different versions of the time scale for the Phanerozoic eon are by now in agreement to within better than 1%. What evidence have you that the errors in the time scale are large enough to cast doubt on the fossil record of the evolution of living things, and, in particular, on the evolution of Homo from the australopithecines and, before them, from Miocene apes?
Except regarding Jesus making wine.Nope.
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
We've discussed this before, haven't we?Then the bible is in error.
No, it wasnt. Wine is wine, grape juice is grape juice.We've discussed this before, haven't we?
Wine was a term used for both a fermented and unfermented drink made of grapes.
Today, the unfermented aspect has been dropped and changed to "grape juice."
Jesus turned water into wine; and if you ask me, it was grape juice.
The juice from grapes didn't begin to ferment until after the Flood.No, it wasn't.
It is today, yes.VirOptimus said:Wine is wine, grape juice is grape juice.
You also have the right to think for yourself rather than believe what a book tells you that God said - or maybe not take it so literally.Here's the thing though.
God says what He did, how He did it, when, where, and so on.
Then He says He made man in His image & likeness.
For evolution to deny all this, then claim we are great apes, is tantamount to saying God is an ape.
In addition, it is basically saying that a mutant, copy error died on the Cross to effect our salvation.
I think we have a right, a privilege, and an obligation to balk about it.
Nope. You misquote the original post. There was no period; no period, no sentence. Good try though. Could we move on from the trivial? Got any arguments?
It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted (Humani Generis).
Not if you read that in context and know anything at all about drinking. It was clearly wine with alcohol. This is an example of how a fixed belief leads to poor understanding of the Bible.We've discussed this before, haven't we?
Wine was a term used for both a fermented and unfermented drink made of grapes.
Today, the unfermented aspect has been dropped and changed to "grape juice."
Jesus turned water into wine; and if you ask me, it was grape juice.
But there was no flood. We know that. You know that. You simply deny it.The juice from grapes didn't begin to ferment until after the Flood.
QV: Noah's wine
It is today, yes.
The wine industry needs to keep the distinctions separate.
You were there?It was clearly wine with alcohol.
You were there?But there was no flood.
You were there?
You were there?
There was no need to be. Remember, none of the authors of Genesis were there either.
If God will not lie to you there was no flood. If God exists he cannot help it if you read a book that is full of allegories and fables as being literal.
You are probably right. But if there was such a wedding, let's forget where the wine came from. The context clearly tells us that it was alcoholic wine.Weren't there?
There was no there there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?