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.
They can dispute that all they like. The fact remains.
That does not follow at all. You can find individual scientists with any number of weird beliefs, including some that are wildly at odds with scientific evidence. Why pay attention to the minuscule fraction of scientists who reject macroevolution, and not the vast majority who find the evidence for it compelling?The point is though, these people, like any scientist, are dealing with scientific matters on a daily basis and yet they still come to the conclusion that macro evolution is false. If the evidence were so conclusive in favour of evolution, then logic dictates that they would be happy to accept it.
Not at all. Jesus told many parables as part of his teaching methods and this was clearly one of those, as everyone would have understood at the time. However, whenever Jesus quoted from Genesis or other parts of the Old Testament, He never referred to them as just made-up stories.
So here we have the Creator of the universe, confirming the authority of Scripture; the only one who has walked the face of this earth who knows everything.
The point is though, these people, like any scientist, are dealing with scientific matters on a daily basis and yet they still come to the conclusion that macro evolution is false. If the evidence were so conclusive in favour of evolution, then logic dictates that they would be happy to accept it.
It hardly seems relevant as your clearly don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, but the story described here is typical of Jesus's style in teaching by using parables. Here's a typical opening summary from a well-known Bible commentary, "We have here the parable of the prodigal son, the scope of which is the same with those before, to show how pleasing to God the conversion of sinners is, of great sinners, and how ready he is to receive and entertain such, upon their repentance; but the circumstances of the parable do much more largely and fully set forth the riches of gospel grace than those did, and it has been, and will be while the world stands, of unspeakable use to poor sinners, both to direct and to encourage them in repenting and returning to God..."Jesus never referred to the Prodigal Son as a made-up story.
There's no proof of that. It could be that many of the flood legends around the world, and I understand there are dozens of them, are based on the real-life event described in the Bible. The Babylonian story may even have borrowed some of the Biblical account, embellishing it in the process.You don't think people could figure out that Noah was a retelling of the Babylonian myth?
So you apparently believe. I believe otherwise.We have stories written by men.
Truth isn't counted by a majority vote. Jesus even stated as much 2000 years ago, so it's a well-known fact.And what of the vast, vast, vaaaaast majority that accept it and reject creationism?
I fail to see how the evidence can be so compelling when it goes against everything we see around us in nature. I think I'm going to conduct a little survey of my own and find out what proportion of those I ask think that evolution is a good explanation for how life came to be. I think I'll also ask a question or two about the alleged Big Bang while I'm at it.Why pay attention to the minuscule fraction of scientists who reject macroevolution, and not the vast majority who find the evidence for it compelling?
It hardly seems relevant as your clearly don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, but the story described here is typical of Jesus's style in teaching by using parables.
Here's a typical opening summary from a well-known Bible commentary,
There's no proof of that. It could be that many of the flood legends around the world, and I understand there are dozens of them, are based on the real-life event described in the Bible. The Babylonian story may even have borrowed some of the Biblical account, embellishing it in the process.
So you apparently believe. I believe otherwise.
I fail to see how the evidence can be so compelling when it goes against everything we see around us in nature.
I think I'm going to conduct a little survey of my own and find out what proportion of those I ask think that evolution is a good explanation for how life came to be. I think I'll also ask a question or two about the alleged Big Bang while I'm at it.
Regarding the other points, I can't find the thread, but clearly there are some scientists who find no conflict between the real science they do in their research/employment and their views that evolution is nothing more that pseudo science.
I didn't tell you what I believe.
You asserted something and I asked how you determined that.
Why are you turning it around, when I merely asked you a question about YOUR assertion?
I'm not making any claims here. I'm just questioning YOUR claims.
I don't claim to know how life started.
Now please, instead of answering my question with another (irrelevant) question, please explain how you determined that which YOU claimed.
It's not ironic. In the first example, Jesus is teaching using stories or parables, but the style he uses in remembering Noah is very different...And yet you won't allow Noah to be a parable. How ironic.
It's not ironic. In the first example, Jesus is teaching using stories or parables, but the style he uses in remembering Noah is very different...
Luk 17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
Luk 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
Islam was founded on force, and that force continues today. Also, there are only a fraction of the number of manuscripts compared to those of the Bible, plus the Biblical documents of the New Testament can be traced back to within a few years of Jesus's ministry on earth - far too soon for legends to creep in.Islam has been around for the past 1500 years. They number in over a billion and are the fastest growing religion world wide.
Islam was founded on force, and that force continues today. Also, there are only a fraction of the number of manuscripts compared to those of the Bible, plus the Biblical documents of the New Testament can be traced back to within a few years of Jesus's ministry on earth - far too soon for legends to creep in.
Jesus could and did use different ways to teach his flock, including the use of miracles. The style in these two examples is different too. In the first, He is telling a story, rather like a school teacher might tell to the children at storytime, whereas in the second example, Jesus is being deadly serious and giving a stark warning about what will happen if people don't change their ways. May I suggest you read the whole book of Luke in order to get the fuller picture? Just quoting little snippets here and there doesn't make much sense on its own because it's hard to understand the all-important context in that way.How is it different? Why can't Jesus tech with parables using two different methods?
Better in what way? It's not regarded as a cult by most Christians without good reason. Jesus warned about adding to or taking away his words when he said...There is a much better history for the Book of Mormon than there is the New Testament.
Better in what way?
It's not regarded as a cult by most Christians without good reason.
The style in these two examples is different too.
May I suggest you read the whole book of Luke in order to get the fuller picture?
God is the author of Genesis. Moses wrote it down under God's direction, but it's God account. So the Babylonian myth idea actually post-dates the real account given in the Bible. Also, you can see by comparing the two stories that the Biblical account is devoid of the fancy bits added to the Babylonian story. There are other parts of the Bible, when it is dealing with historical topics, that give it a ring of truth. Here's just a couple of examples: the women being first at the empty tomb after the resurrection of Jesus. If the story were made up, women wouldn't have been given such a centre-stage role in those days because they were largely thought of as being second-class citizens. The fact that they were, is strong evidence that what is being told actually happened. Then there is the part where Jesus wrote something on the ground. They don't tell you what He wrote, so why mention it if it were simply made up? Another example has just come to mind as well - the disciples were not exactly your normal hero types, so if the accounts given were simply fiction, why not choose some real hero-type characters to play the parts?the authors of Genesis
God is the author of Genesis. Moses wrote it down under God's direction, but it's God account.
Also, you can see by comparing the two stories that the Biblical account is devoid of the fancy bits added to the Babylonian story. There are other parts of the Bible, when it is dealing with historical topics, that give it a ring of truth. Here's just a couple of examples: the women being first at the empty tomb after the resurrection of Jesus. If the story were made up, women wouldn't have been given such a centre-stage role in those days because they were largely thought of as being second-class citizens. The fact that they were, is strong evidence that what is being told actually happened. Then there is the part where Jesus wrote something on the ground. They don't tell you what He wrote, so why mention it if it were simply made up? Another example has just come to mind as well - the disciples were not exactly your normal hero types, so if the accounts given were simply fiction, why not choose some real hero-type characters to play the parts?
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?