Does this Bible doctrine "exist"??

[BobRyan]

I had assumed that everyone believes that there is such a thing as "the Bible doctrine on origins" - but lately I am not convinced that everyone views it that way. I wanted a thread where people can vote on that one single point - of whether such a bible doctrine even exists in their POV.

this is not a thread where we ask how the Bible fits or does not fit with modern ideas or theories - just whether it even has such a doctrine no matter how you view .

My view is that Genesis 1 and 2, along with Exodus 20:9 and Exodus 20:11 show a very distinct and specific doctrine on origins, a teaching on how life on Earth came about as God stated it what Christ calls the "Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13.

I personally think as do many other creationists that Bible doctrine is compatible with science fact -

For example:
Christ raises Lazarus from the dead - but that act does not "destroy science" nor is it 'anti-science" or "opposed to science". Salt still has the same properties and hot air still rises in our atmosphere after Lazarus was raised from the dead - as before. Just because Mary and Martha cannot then take some secret science knowledge and use it to raise the dead does not mean that the fact of Lazarus' resurrection from the dead contradicts science, destroys science or is incompatible with scientific study.

They are free to study science and be 100% scientifically correct in their statements AND ALSO admit that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that they can't do that.

In the same way that you can take commercial jet across the nation - and yet admit that rocks don't turn into commercial jets ... and also admit that you do not have all the aeronautics engineering skill to make one yourself. Admitting that they "exist" is still not "anti-science". You are simply admitting someone else has that knowledge and ability ... not you, and that it "did not arise out of inherent properties already in rocks --- over time".

=================

not everyone will agree with creationists on that point and everyone has free will.. and may choose as they wish.

 

[Timtofly]

Not to nit pick, but the Bible has no doctrines. Certain religious affiliations take Bible truth and form human docrines they believe in and abide by.

Other than agreeing with the words of Genesis, I would say only theistic evolutionists are the first to attempt an origin doctrine from the Bible. Not even creationist have a "doctrine" that is adhered to. The basic belief would be: "God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. There is no belief of man that will change that truth of God’s Word." Most of the church stuck with Aristotle and left it at that.

 

[Tra Phull]

Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[Philip_B]

I take the view that the Bible, and the stories of origin you mention are teaching us about the author or creation, the alpha point of all creation, not so much a national geographic article.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Bible has a very clear theology of origins.
The Bible does not have a scientific explanation for the material origins of the vast diversity of life on earth, both past and present.

It's theology of origins is quite clear though, and it's what we confess all the time in the Creed, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

Bible is not a science textbook.

agreed.

So for example if Christ raises Lazarus from the dead - that act does not "destroy science" nor is it 'anti-science" or "opposed to science" just because Mary and Martha cannot then take some secret science knowledge and use it to raise the dead. They are free to study science and be 100% scientifically correct in their statements AND ALSO admit that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that they can't do that.