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.
The word "heart" appears quite a number of times in the Bible. "Heart" is used 127 times in the Psalms and 75 times in Proverbs, for instance. Overall, "heart" appears 712 times in the Bible. This count is based on the NIV translation.
"Heart" obviously has two meanings, one, an organ of the body, and two, a secret place of thoughts, feelings, and motives.
Here is an extraordinary fact: As often as Biblical authors used the word "heart," not one of them knew that blood circulates. Not one of them knew that the heart, as an organ of the body, pumps blood through the body. Even less did they know how the heart works with the lungs.
The circulation of the blood wasn't understood until it was demonstrated by William Harvey in 1628. Harvey was an English doctor. He based his views both on dissecting bodies and research on live patients. Blood pressure was first measured in 1733, over a hundred years later.
In the ancient world, Galen was physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He died about 200 AD. Galen thought that blood formed in the liver, flowed out to the rest of he body, and was absorbed. Galen knew more about blood than anyone in the ancient world and yet he still didn't understand that blood is circulated by the heart.
Here is the problem for creationists. No Biblical author knew the function of the heart, the function of blood, or the contents of veins and arteries. Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about? Why would we expect them to have accurate knowledge of animals, plants and continents?
Why would we expect the authors of the Bible to know whether frogs have been around longer than rabbits? Why would we expect them to know whether turtles had been around longer than foxes? They had no knowledge of animals and plants beyond what is obvious to farmers, herdmen and hunters.
They were right to say that God is responsible, that God is the Creator, that God has creative power but they did not know the details. As non-creationists have pointed out before, the Bible is not a science text.
Firstly, God is not capable of all things. He can't do things that are adverse to his nature, such as committing sin. Just FYI.If you accept some forms of evolution (genetic change with descent with modification), even just recognizing that dogs originated from wolves, then you are accepting the same science that demonstrates larger scale transitions as well. Because there really is no line, or limit to change. There is no barrier where genes simply stop changing. So long as mutations occur, physical morphology changes as well.
So i would ask, in scientific terms, or perhaps relating to genetics, what is the difference between wolf to dog evolution and say, reptile to bird? In the most literal sense, why is one possible while the other impossible (even though we know that God is capable of all things)?
If scientific study is all that we depend on for our knowledge of the answers of these great questions, then...
An interesting question, but it contains some assumptions which we ought to clear up.As far as I'm concerned, I believe that if the gospel was not absolutely necessary for the salvation of every person...the theistic evolutionists would toss it out too.
They discard every part of the YEC and spout that "it's not necessary for the fate of my soul".... "It's not a salvation issue".... true, true, true....
However you WILL believe all the other, completely unscientific miraculous events of Christ's death, burial and resurrection due to one thing and one thing only.......the eternal fate of your soul depends on it to be true.
If Genesis being literal WAS a necessity of salvation..........would you believe it then?
Well, I will take the words of Jesus over an other book or text or script or compilation of words that speak of the history of our earth and universe as it relates to the truthful events. No matter how many others hold these other writtings to be true or "scientific"... I could care less...An interesting question, but it contains some assumptions which we ought to clear up.
For one thing, theistic evolutionists don't "toss out" the Genesis stories, they merely don't take them as literal history. Genesis is still regarded as divine revelation, and much of Christian doctrine would be incomprehensible without it.
Further, for those of us who are not Protestants, the Bible is not the sole source of our knowledge of Christ's life, death and resurrection. This knowledge comes down to us through Sacred Tradition, which the written Gospels corroberate and help preserve, but our faith is not solely dependent on them.
The minimum set of beliefs for a Christian is widely thought to be contained in the Nicene Creed. Yet we all believe things in addition which are comfortable to our faith. For example, I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacraments--but I will not accuse you of cynical opportunism because you do not.
Just what one would expect from Ken Ham. But you still don't get it: If the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow and the Earth conclusively proved to be of recent creation it would not change my view of the Genesis stories one bit--Ken Ham's lame apologetics notwithstanding.Well, I will take the words of Jesus over an other book or text or script or compilation of words that speak of the history of our earth and universe as it relates to the truthful events. No matter how many others hold these other writtings to be true or "scientific"... I could care less...
Look at: Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?
In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
This article also reveals this truth.....
Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days. Not only this, but the one who spoke the words “six days” also wrote them down for Moses: “Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).
So, from this we can conclude.....
Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?
So, you may say that you don't "toss them out" yet you certainly don't hold them as true events while clearly the one you rely on for your salvation does.
Ya, I get it.Just what one would expect from Ken Ham. But you still don't get it: If the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow and the Earth conclusively proved to be of recent creation it would not change my view of the Genesis stories one bit--Ken Ham's lame apologetics notwithstanding.
I'm sure you think so. I would find it unconvincing no matter who wrote it.Ya, I get it.
However, whether it was penned by Ken Ham or not... the facts presented are still the facts. If a building was red, and Ken Ham wrote that "the building was red" it does not diminish the fact that the building is red just because Ken Ham wrote it.
The words presented and the logic it reveals is solid.
Well of course you do.... It's pure logic and scripturally sound, yet you find the literal text of the biblical account "unconvincing" anyway and it's the word of God.I'm sure you think so. I would find it unconvincing no matter who wrote it.
Well, it's pure circular logic, which is a kind of logic I suppose.Well of course you do.... It's pure logic and scripturally sound, yet you find the literal text of the biblical account "unconvincing" anyway and it's the word of God.
Well, the whole Bible is circular logic, isn't it?Well, it's pure circular logic, which is a kind of logic I suppose.
I find your arguments for the literal interpretation of the text unconvincing. The Bible itself is entirely convincing because, as you point out, it is the word of God.
No, we have Sacred Tradition, which breaks the circle.Well, the whole Bible is circular logic, isn't it?
The Bible says that the bible is the only truth?
Totally circular.
I do.However, if you believe any of it, must you not believe all of it?
I don't know; since I believe all of it, the problem doesn't come up.If you don't believe some of it, how can you believe any of it?
Exactly.It is either the word of God and total truth... or you toss it out like any other book of "just" stories.
Hi again dale,
Let me take a moment and see if I can offer some better explanation as to my understanding of where the knowledge and wisdom that we find in the Scriptures came from. If we believe the time and date of the things written in the book of Daniel, then Daniel foretold an event that he didn't even have any idea when it would happen, yet gave specific information concerning when it would happen. Daniel couldn't have known the timeline of his foretelling by his own knowledge.
However, Daniel's explanation was that the information was given to him by an angel and that angel told him that he (the angel) was given the information directly from God. So, what Daniel then wrote down to be preserved throughout the generations wasn't based on Daniel's ability, knowledge or understanding. It was ultimately God telling Daniel, "Look, this is going to happen and here's when it's going to happen'.
Hopefully this helps in understanding that what Moses wrote down regarding the creation event, to be preserved for future generations, wasn't any ability, knowledge or wisdom that came from Moses. It was the knowledge and wisdom of God who was there at the time of the event's happening. The Holy Spirit revealed these things to Moses and Moses, much like a secretary, wrote it all down for us.
Now, I readily agree and admit that a lot of people don't understand the creation of the Scriptures in this way and that's ok. Ultimately, what the believer wants to know is the truth. Did the ideas and thoughts and facts that we find in the Scriptures come from the mind of man or the mind of God?
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
Hi again dale,
So, to continue with my understanding of God's ability to pass his knowledge through to men by the power of His Spirit, here's how I envision that Moses came to write the book of the beginning. Moses was with God for 40 days on the mountain top. There came a time, during that period, that God revealed to Moses how and when He created this realm. Moses then wrote it all down. To this day, God has preserved that account for all men to know the truth of the how and why we are here. Now the choice for each of us becomes, will we believe God or man?
Yes, I readily agree that this is only my limited understanding of how the account of the beginning came to be known and written down by Moses, but it is just as logical an explanation as any other, given what the Scriptures tell us about how they came to exist. Holy men of God wrote as they were led by the Holy Spirit.
The definition of 'holy' is to be set apart. So what the Scriptures tell us in other words is that men who were set apart to God wrote as they were led by the Spirit of God. So, let's understand that we're not talking about just any Tom, Dick or Harry that lived in ancient days. We're talking about men who were faithful to God and desired to know and to trust Him. These few men, such as the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel and Jeremiah were special people that God set apart from all the other people upon the earth to write down the many things that He revealed to them through His Spirit.
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
Hi speedwell,
Yes, I would agree that you and I have a basic foundational difference in our respective understanding of the basis of the wisdom and knowledge that is found in the Scriptures. Mine, however, is based on Paul's explanation of the foundation of the Scriptures. Yours is based on what, exactly?
The question, as always for the believer, what is the truth? Should I believe what men try to convince me is the truth regarding the things of God, despite that fact that they don't really have any concrete evidence that their thoughts and ideas are the truth? Or, should I believe what Paul, a man who obviously had a life changing relationship with the Lord, has explained to me is the foundation of the knowledge and truth that we find in the Scriptures? A man of whom Jesus himself said would be his witness to the Gentiles.
I choose to go with Paul. You seem to choose to go with your own understanding and see things that you can't believe could possibly be true as simply not true. I rather read of all the many, many miraculous things that God has claimed to have done throughout the many years of our history that He has recorded for us some of what He has done, and pretty clearly understand that His ability to create an entire realm of existence by His command and decree is certainly possible. That since He tells us, through the writers of the Scriptures, those writings of holy men who were led by the Spirit of God, that such is the case, then I believe Him.
God caused a young woman who had never had sexual relations with a man to be pregnant. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. God caused water to stand up as a wall. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. God caused a donkey or mule to speak language. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. Most all of the trials brought against Egypt are utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. That three men could walk around in a fiery furnace with not a single hair on their heads to become singed, is utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. There are literally dozens of accounts found in the Scriptures of the things that God has done that are utterly impossible according to any provable understanding of men. The creation is just one more such account. It's utterly impossible...if our foundation for truth is only the wisdom and understanding of men.
But once again, the question that every believer wants answered before they will trust in anyone's explanation is: What is the truth?
Anyway, you and I have been at this crossroads before and here we still stand.
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
Ted in post #21: << The Holy Spirit revealed these things to Moses and Moses, much like a secretary, wrote it all down for us. >>
The first five books of the Bible, the Torah, or Pentateuch, are traditionally ascribed to Moses. You seem to take this with complete literalness. Yet it is impossible. Deuteronomy describes the death and burial of Moses, by God, so Moses could not possibly have written the account. As a minister once explained to me, in those days you honored people by naming books after them.
The notion that Moses took it all down "like a secretary" is also fanciful. Take a look at this passage.
He [John the Baptist] went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet ...
--Luke 3:3-4 NIV
Luke refers to the Book of Isaiah as "the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet." He doesn't say that Isaiah wrote this book, he leaves the impression that Isaiah's sayings were collected after the prophet's death. Luke certainly doesn't say that Isaiah acted as secretary while God dictated.
Ted in post #21: << If we believe the time and date of the things written in the book of Daniel, then Daniel foretold an event that he didn't even have any idea when it would happen, yet gave specific information concerning when it would happen. >>
You mention prophecy from Daniel but you don't say which of Daniel's prophecies you are talking about.
One thing that God and Moses don't talk about is the creation, or anything else in Genesis, except for God's promise to Abraham about the Promised Land.
Ted, I believe that you are citing Paul's theology selectively. In Timothy, Paul warns of those who "devote themselves to myths." We know that he is not talking about pagans here because he mentions "endless genealogies" among the things that he finds to be a dead end.
Going to disagree with your opinion that fossils prove anything, and just clarify the Creationist position for you.
Creationists don't deny evolution. We don't deny the role of evolution in the appearance of many different dogs, produce, viruses, whatever.
We deny the idea of evolution being stretched to justify the belief that creatures evolved from different kinds of creatures.
did the dog and the wolf have common ancestor? sure! probably. did the dog and the tulip have a common ancestor? No. We disagree on that one.
I'm just clarifying the Creationist position for you on Evolution.
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?