Bible verse thread

[TwinCrier]

Since this is a Christian forum and we all believe the bible in some form or another, I thought we could post just bible verses that we feel support our origins belief. I doubt this will be done without commentary, but we can try. Any debate over the meaning of a verse can be used to start another topic. Perhaps we can also start a thread where we only post science evidence and no verses. Please, just post one verse at a time.

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

 

[herev]

[Bible]Genesis 1:1[/Bible]...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

They're between the chapters on quantum mechanics and the ones on the nitrogen cycle, just after redox potentials.

Nothing to see here folks, just a category error. Move it along, folks.

 

[Vance]

Karl is right. I could ask a creationist if they believe in the presently accepted scientific theory of gravity, or the germ theory. They would say yes. I could ask them to find Scripture which supports these scientific theories, and they would look at me funny. I could say "well, if these theories were true, wouldn't there be Scripture which specifically addresses them?" They would say "well, no, that is ridiculous. The Bible is not a science manual!" I would say "ah, you're right".

The point is that there is no Scripture which absolutely contradicts evolution and an old earth. There are, of course, interpretations of Scripture which contradict evolution and an old earth, but that is different.

 

[gluadys]

Karl is right. I could ask a creationist if they believe in the presently accepted scientific theory of gravity, or the germ theory. They would say yes. I could ask them to find Scripture which supports these scientific theories, and they would look at me funny. I could say "well, if these theories were true, wouldn't there be Scripture which specifically addresses them?" They would say "well, no, that is ridiculous. The Bible is not a science manual!" I would say "ah, you're right".

The point is that there is no Scripture which absolutely contradicts evolution and an old earth. There are, of course, interpretations of Scripture which contradict evolution and an old earth, but that is different.

True. From the two scriptures posted, I would not be able to tell whether the poster was creo or evo. Both scriptures could be used to support either position. Better to recognize that the bible is not a scientific text at all.

 

[herev]

True. From the two scriptures posted, I would not be able to tell whether the poster was creo or evo. Both scriptures could be used to support either position. Better to recognize that the bible is not a scientific text at all.

And of course, that was my point in posting mine--as a TE, I think Genesis 1:1 supports my theory just fine.

 

[InnerPhyre]

And of course, that was my point in posting mine--as a TE, I think Genesis 1:1 supports my theory just fine.

Yep it does.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

Romans 8 : 28
Romans 1

 

[TwinCrier]

Trust in the LORD with all Thine heart: and lean not unto thine own understanding.


Proverbs 3:5

 

[troodon]

"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith"

1 Timothy 1:3-4

Boo-ya!

 

[GodSaves]

Proverbs 28:23

"He who rebukes a man will in the end gain more favor than he who has a flattering tongue."

 

[mhess13]

I like the verses that prove that there was no death before sin

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Rom 8:20-22 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

1 Cor. 15:21-22 (KJV)
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


1Co 15:24-26 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

[Andy D]

They're between the chapters on quantum mechanics and the ones on the nitrogen cycle, just after redox potentials.

Nothing to see here folks, just a category error. Move it along, folks.

And should we do the same for Genesis as a Christian? Just move right on and ignore them because they are inspired by God?

 

[Andy D]

Karl is right. I could ask a creationist if they believe in the presently accepted scientific theory of gravity, or the germ theory. They would say yes. I could ask them to find Scripture which supports these scientific theories, and they would look at me funny. I could say "well, if these theories were true, wouldn't there be Scripture which specifically addresses them?" They would say "well, no, that is ridiculous. The Bible is not a science manual!" I would say "ah, you're right".

The point is that there is no Scripture which absolutely contradicts evolution and an old earth. There are, of course, interpretations of Scripture which contradict evolution and an old earth, but that is different.

Show me where the Bible gives an alternative view on gravity or germ theory?

I can see clearly where it gives an account of creation. Take it as allogorical or factual account and it still exists as inspired word of God. If the Bible gave us another alternative to gravity then im sure there would be much debate over it as well. God knows best and is much more scientific then any of us will ever be because He created all things and is God. I agree that interpretation plays a big part in this for those of us who are in fact Christians, for TE and YEC and Gap Theory beliefs. If there were no account of a literal creation in 6 days then sure, we would probably all just accept it just like gravity is accepted, but the fact is, it is there and we cant deny it was written...now if we have faith that it is inspired by God then we must interpret it as lead by the Holy Spirit and not by man. In Peter it states that no scripture is to have private interpretation.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

 

[Vance]

God gives an account of his placement of the rainbow in the sky, so do we accept that it rainbows was just a supernatural creative event or accept the explanation that God allows rainbows to be formed by light refraction? Is it any less of a promise because God used a natural process? Is it all any less of a miracle?

 

[Alchemist]

If there were no account of a literal creation in 6 days then sure, we would probably all just accept it just like gravity is accepted, but the fact is, it is there and we cant deny it was written...now if we have faith that it is inspired by God then we must interpret it as lead by the Holy Spirit and not by man. In Peter it states that no scripture is to have private interpretation.

Well, in this case, we'll have to look to the Church. The original Christian church was the Roman Catholic Church (the Protestant movement split off that) - and, I'm sorry, but they accept evolution:[font=Tahoma, sans-serif]
[/font]

"Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4)."

- taken from Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com)
​

I think the quote from the Pope sums it up:

"The sacred scripture wishes to simply declare that the world was created by God. The Bible does not wish to teach how heaven was made, but how one goes to heaven."
- Pope Jean Paul II​

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[Andy D]

God gives an account of his placement of the rainbow in the sky, so do we accept that it rainbows was just a supernatural creative event or accept the explanation that God allows rainbows to be formed by light refraction? Is it any less of a promise because God used a natural process? Is it all any less of a miracle?

But there are no interpretations of the Bible that I know that contradict our scientific understanding of a rainbow. They are a beautiful thing to see regardless though. I love it when I see a double rainbow hehe

 

[Andy D]

Well, in this case, we'll have to look to the Church. The original Christian church was the Roman Catholic Church (the Protestant movement split off that) - and, I'm sorry, but they accept evolution:[font=Tahoma, sans-serif]


[/font]

"Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.


The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4)."

- taken from Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com)

​

I think the quote from the Pope sums it up:

"The sacred scripture wishes to simply declare that the world was created by God. The Bible does not wish to teach how heaven was made, but how one goes to heaven."

- Pope Jean Paul II
​

Peace,

Alchemist

See I dont look to the church, I look to the Holy Spirit who can lead each one of us and also to my brothers and sisters in Christ. Our leaders are men just like us so whilst we look to them with respect, it doesnt make them infallible.

I guess the argument of the original church being the Roman Catholic Church is one that I have heard both sides of too. The side I hear is that the Roman Catholic church split off the original church...who were known as Christians..or Catholics...were the same thing back then. The Protestants and Roman Catholics went their separate ways as many churches do even today when they split..over differences in beliefs.

We can look back at the past and see the same debate going on today over the interpretation of Genesis. There have always been people on both sides of the fence. Just that today we have much more scientific evidence available.

Just out of curiousness, how does the Pope say one is to go to heaven from his understanding of the Bible?

 

[TwinCrier]

God gives an account of his placement of the rainbow in the sky, so do we accept that it rainbows was just a supernatural creative event or accept the explanation that God allows rainbows to be formed by light refraction? Is it any less of a promise because God used a natural process? Is it all any less of a miracle?

God uses a natural process, or God CREATED the natural process?

 

[Andy D]

God uses a natural process, or God CREATED the natural process?

God can use a natural process but also created all things...even the natural process. If I take the flood and creation to be literal accounts then it is possible that the environment was different prior to the flood to the extent that the process to cause a rainbow never occured until that point. To man it was a miracle because they could not understand the scientific process at that time but now we research so many scientific things to find out the origin of the earth and find that there are many laws that are consistent but you cant tell me that you believe macro-evolution comes under the same banner as laws such as gravity and mathematics and other laws of the universe can you?

We all must work within the realm of these laws regardless of what we believe. Anything that requires certain assumptions to be made however will have an element of faith attached wont it? To accept TE as correct, one must also assume that the global flood has been disproven. If this were proven to be incorrect then all the evidence must be re-interpreted to take this into account.