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.
Concerns or examples about post-exilic authorship of Genesis? I don't see how that fits with the topic. Maybe you are saying that we should discuss the scientific reasons for rejecting first-person sourcing to show that science is not a reason to reject the Genesis accounts as first-hand accounts.This has to do with end time events and the end of the age. In the last 50 years a lot of pastors have had a real itch to talk about this subject. I went to a church the pastor wrote a book about the "rapture" and even they put on a play. The church seats 2400 and they would fill all the seat for people that wanted to see the play. Look at this board with all the different beliefs and all the people that reject the scientific methods to know the truth.
It is a little silly to ask me why I want to know the truth. With all the false information going around.
There are several reasons why some people might think science is a lie:
It’s important to approach scientific claims critically but also to recognize the rigorous processes and peer review that underpin credible scientific research. If you have any specific concerns or examples in mind, feel free to share them!
- Misunderstanding of the Scientific Process: Science is a method of inquiry that involves forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and revising theories based on evidence. This process can lead to changes in scientific understanding, which some people might interpret as inconsistency or dishonesty1.
- Misinformation and Disinformation: In the age of social media, false information can spread quickly. Some individuals or groups may deliberately spread misinformation to undermine scientific consensus for various reasons, including political or financial gain1.
- Complexity and Accessibility: Scientific concepts can be complex and difficult to understand. When people don’t fully grasp these concepts, they might be more susceptible to doubting or rejecting scientific findings2.
- Historical Misconduct: There have been instances where scientists have committed fraud or misconduct. These cases, although rare, can damage public trust in science34.
- Conflicting Interests: Sometimes, scientific findings can conflict with personal beliefs, economic interests, or political agendas. This can lead to skepticism or outright rejection of scientific evidence1.
I do not seem to be able to say this in plain enough English so that people understand. The problem is that people trust in their translation and interpretation of the Bible. Even though there is overwelming evidence that they do not understand their Bible. It does not matter that I have put almost 50 years to read study and learn about the subject. They think the five minutes worth of effort they invested trumps my 50 years of effort and hundreds of books I have read by qualified people who are experts in their field of study.Maybe you are saying that we should discuss the scientific reasons for rejecting first-person sourcing to show that science is not a reason to reject the Genesis accounts as first-hand accounts.
I can't say whether I agree or not with what you are saying, because it doesn't fit with the topic of the thread anymore. Can you explain why you are talking about something that is unrelated? Or would you tell me how it is related? This has nothing to do with how long you've been studying.I do not seem to be able to say this in plain enough English so that people understand. The problem is that people trust in their translation and interpretation of the Bible. Even though there is overwelming evidence that they do not understand their Bible. It does not matter that I have put almost 50 years to read study and learn about the subject. They think the five minutes worth of effort they invested trumps my 50 years of effort and hundreds of books I have read by qualified people who are experts in their field of study.
Paul says to be fully convinced and that is fine, they are fully convinced. If they are not interested in what I have to say that is fine. We do not need man to teach us. We have the Holy Spirit of God to guide us and to lead us in the way we are to go. Everyone is accountable to God, so they can work it out with Him. If they are fully convinced in what they believe and have full assurance from God that they are where they need to be with Him.
Except that the Bible says to lean not in your own understanding.
Proverbs 3 5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; 6in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.…
Sometimes even 50 years is just a reinforcement of one's own view.It does not matter that I have put almost 50 years to read study and learn about the subject.
Science is objective not subjective. Although I hear the doctors in the hospital argue with each other a lot. Are you comfortable with your treatment plan being so hotly disputed? I suppose doctors are not science so it is ok if they want to argue and fight with each other.Sometimes even 50 years is just a reinforcement of one's own view.
You asked a question and I answered it. The discussion had to do with communication and how to communicate with each other. We can not talk about anything if we disagree on how to communicate with each other.Can you explain why you are talking about something that is unrelated?
Do you trust science to build you a car or a comptuer or to provide medical care for you. Perhaps you are living off of the grid somewhere if you have so little confidence for science to build you a city to live in. If you are living in a cave where do you plug your comptuer in to charge it?Science can't handle the truth.
I am all for science. And even applying it to scripture as best we can. That is why I asked about critical methods.Science is objective not subjective. Although I hear the doctors in the hospital argue with each other a lot. Are you comfortable with your treatment plan being so hotly disputed? I suppose doctors are not science so it is ok if they want to argue and fight with each other.
What about quality control. My son is a computer engineer. They are building a factory to make silicone carbon nano resisters for the electronics in a car. The better the quality control the longer the car is going to last. Can science be trusted with that or should science be told to take a hike and build the cheapest resisters they can build and stuff money in their pocket when your car breaks down and you need to replace parts that were not made to last.
I am all for science.
The scientific method is a systematic process used to gather knowledge and explain phenomena in the natural world. Here are the key steps involved. I have noticed you like to present hypothesis but you do not follow through to test your hypothesis to see how valid they are.In your opinion, does everyone who says they are for science qualify to be a scientist?
The scientific method is a systematic process used to gather knowledge and explain phenomena in the natural world.
it depends what qualifies as "a scientist". I would think at least a Bachelor of Science degree would be needed to quality.In your opinion, does everyone who says they are for science qualify to be a scientist?
it depends what qualifies as "a scientist". I would think at least a Bachelor of Science degree would be needed to quality.
One does not need to be a "scientist" to recognize and supports the benefits of science.So, in essence, we have billions of people adhering to something they don't qualify in, telling those of us who don't do science that we are in error in our beliefs?
One does not need to be a "scientist" to recognize and supports the benefits of science.
Nor do I tell scientists how to do science.That's true.
I don't have to be a dairy farmer in order to like milk.
But you don't see me telling dairy farmers how to milk cows, do you?
Because of this thread I picked up a copy of his Evolution of Adam, which looks at the creation accounts (and specifically Adam) by addressing the very issues he discussed more generally in Inspiration and Incarnation. You can definitely read the second book without the first.Enns's book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament,
Because of this thread I picked up a copy of his Evolution of Adam, which looks at the creation accounts (and specifically Adam) by addressing the very issues he discussed more generally in Inspiration and Incarnation. You can definitely read the second book without the first.
The first half is on Genesis - when written, how related to other ancient texts, and (only 20 pages on) interpretation as Israel in primordial time. I haven’t yet read the second half, which is on Paul’s Adam. I suspect it has some overlap with his earlier book when discussing how NT and other second-temple writers interpret and handle the OT, but it looks like it adds in a fair amount of Adam-specific analysis.
Just thought I would mention it in case it sounded better than the earlier book.
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?