Subduction Zone
Regular Member
But we know that is not the case. Using the ostrich defense does not change reality.
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.
But we know that is not the case. Using the ostrich defense does not change reality.What am I adding? Nothing. It says six days, I believe it's six days. It says the flood was over the whole earth, I believe it.
Obviously not, the Bible indicates different kinds at creation.
The new Testament says that there are four types of flesh.
1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
Then Genesis names 3 groups within the flesh of animals.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.
Hah! You would still be out of luck. Pterodactyls were not dinosaurs, they were lizards.
I'm not using the ostrich defense. I'm asking Christians why they don't believe what their Bible clearly says.
I imagine the vast majority of Christians find slavery morally repugnant.I'm not using the ostrich defense. I'm asking Christians why they don't believe what their Bible clearly says.
That's not what he said tho'. He said "this is my flesh and blood."believe that Jesus literally gives us His true flesh and true blood in, with, and under the bread and wine of His Supper.
Of course the Bible condones it.Does it? It doesn't condemn it, but it does it condone it?
It's just there because it's part of human History.
The giants survived the flood that includes the dinosaurs. They are included in giantism.From Answers in Genisis
How dinosaurs lived with man, how they were preserved on Noah’s ark—likely as juveniles—and what happened to dinosaurs after the floodThe Dinosaur "Hurdle"
But the biggest hurdle people have when they see any of our displays of the ark (or visit the Ark Encounter) is seeing dinosaurs depicted on the ark (or in stalls in the Ark Encounter). Due to evolutionary indoctrination, many people can't picture man living alongside dinosaurs, or if they do, they think of the Jurassic Park/World movies and view all dinosaurs as wanting to trample or eat people. Even if they overcome or set aside this stumbling block, we still get questions of how dinosaurs could even fit on the ark, particularly when considering the massive dinosaurs, especially the sauropods. Other oft-cited "problems" with dinosaurs on the ark are feeding the herbivores the massive amounts of vegetation that the adults eat, feeding the carnivorous ones (and avoiding being eaten by them), and cleaning up after them.
It makes more sense to think that God would have sent to Noah juveniles (or sub-adults) or smaller varieties within the same kind.
Crunching the Numbers
Noah also did not have to bring marine animals, bacteria, fungi, or plants (except as possible food sources) and many (if any) insects onto the ark.
But How Could Noah Care for the Dinosaurs on the Ark?
We need to keep in mind that Noah was a very intelligent man and was obeying God’s commands by faith (Hebrews 11:7). And it was God’s desire that the animals on the ark were well cared for and able to disembark healthy and repopulate the new world.
Dinosaurs Were on the Ark and Dinosaurs Came off the Ark
The evolutionary story is that dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago, long before humans evolved. But Scripture tells a quite different account.
So since we are the monkey kind there was no need for other primates.
Got it.
That's not an endorsement of slavery. It's just telling slaves what kind of people to be.Of course the Bible condones it.
The Bible doesn't simply record slavery in a historical context.
For example.
Ephesians 6:5-8 “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”
1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh".
1 Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered."
To name a few.
They cute!I am just thankful that there were 2 Corgi's on the Ark!
Is Paul saying there are four types of flesh, or is he simply providing examples of differences between different creatures, because Paul's point is to illustrate that bodily resurrection isn't simply rescuscitating the body, but a transformation of the body. Passing from mortality to immortality, death to life, what is sown perishable is raised imperishable. That the kind of flesh we have now will be raised, but with a different "glory".
"But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a soulish body; it is raised a Spiritual body." - 1 Corinthians 15:35-44a
Your quote from Genesis really only emphasizes the point I made. "Kinds" are not biological categories, but a way of saying "this and that", of making a distinction. So Genesis 1:24 mentions different kinds of creatures, not exhaustively, and not as discrete biological categories. Genesis 1:24 does not mean there are only three "kinds", consisting of "cattle", "creeping things", and "beasts of the earth", it simply presents an assortment of known creatures. Because ancient people were quite capable of looking around them and go, "Hey, that's a thing" and "Oh, that's another thing". That's a dog, that's a fish, thus are two different things, two "kinds".
A "kind" could be all cats, for example "cats" would describe the "kind" "cats". But there could also be calico cats, that's a kind of cat. That cat with a spot on its head, that's a kind of cat too. Tigers? Tigers are a kind of cat, a bigger kind of cat.
Bats, for example, are a "kind" of flying creature, an 'owph, a thing with wings. Which is why bats are a kind of "bird" in Leviticus 11:19, because 'owph doesn't mean "avians" it simply means "flying things" or "things with wings". Bats are things with wings, and vultures are things with wings, so they are both the same "kind" of thing; and within that kind--'owph--there are other kinds--vultures, hawks, pigeons, owls, etc.
This kind of gets me to one of my problems with YEC, YEC doesn't let the Bible actually say what it says. Because in order for YEC to "come out right", the Bible has to be changed to say what it never says, and to mean what it never meant.
The Bible doesn't talk about biology, it talks about practical observations made by ancient people; and those observations are not perfect. It's why they could speak about the "vault" of heaven, or a "firmament"--because it looked as though there was a dome covering the earth. If you walk to a place that's really flat, and see the sky touch the horizon in all directions. Why not imagine that the earth is flat or flattish, and that the sky is a literal dome. That description accurately reflects how someone might observe the world without knowledge otherwise.
And it's okay if the Bible mentions those observations. Because it is an authentic, and earnest expression of God's people making sense of their world. It really doesn't matter that an ancient Hebrew writer imagined the cosmos to look and be one way, and for them to be wrong because they simply didn't know otherwise. That doesn't cause any injury to the divine inspiration and power of Scripture to proclaim the Crucified and Risen Christ, Jesus of Nazareth born of Mary, the Eternal Son and Word of God who became man, being born during the reign of Herod the Great and who suffered and was put to death under Pontius Pilate.
What matters is the Gospel, not the scientific accuracy of the Bible. God's Word to us is Jesus Christ.
-CryptoLutheran
It clearly is an endorsement or acceptance of slavery.That's not an endorsement of slavery. It's just telling slaves what kind of people to be.
A case of the Bible being wrong. The Bible is not a science book. The Bible also only refers to the Earth as being flat in word and deed.Obviously not
1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
You are. I offered to go over the basics of science with you. You cannot understand why Christians do not make your error until you learn a bit more about the world that we live in.I'm not using the ostrich defense. I'm asking Christians why they don't believe what their Bible clearly says.
A case of the Bible being wrong. The Bible is not a science book. The Bible also only refers to the Earth as being flat in word and deed.
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?