Evidence for human evolution

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 03:49 PM eutychus37 said this in Post #74

And one who doesn't take Genesis literally might as well not take the Gospel literally. God had what was written because that's how he wanted it to be stated, and we shouldn't take God's word into our own hands to manipulate it.

I actually see the connection between the literal Genesis vs. the acceptance of the resurrection. If one can't believe that a sovereign, supreme God can not do everything that he did in Genesis, then how can one believe that the word became flesh, and lived a sinless life to be crucified by peers, only to rise three days after death?

You either accept all of God or none of him.

That last sentence isn't what this is about.  Yes, God could have created exactly how it states in Genesis 1.  But since Genesis 2 says God created differently than Genesis 1, that should be a hint that God didn't mean to have you read either story literally.

Also, the evidence God left in Creation tells you how God really created.  Most passages in the Bible simply assert that God did create, but not how.  And the Nicean Creed simply declares that God created, but not how.

So, you can easily believe that God is Creator but not accept creationism and not affecting the resurrection at all.

Christians have taken God's word into their hands to manipulate it throughout Judeo-Christianity.  Paul took the OT and manipulated it to give the Christology Christianity has now.  The gospel authors took the OT and manipulated the prophecies of the messiah so that Jesus fit them.  Christians took "God's Word" and manipulated it to back geocentrism. When geocentrism was shown to be false, they adopted new interpretations so that they could accept heliocentrism.  How many of the Laws in the Torah do you adhere to?  Jesus didn't overthrow all of them, but Paul decided that he couldn't get gentiles to follow them, so he quietly dropped them.

 

[lucaspa]

1st March 2003 at 07:04 PM Wasp said this in Post #57

Well what about the coconino sandstone formation in the grand canyon? It covers 250,000 km and is 100 m thick. The large scale cross-bedding shows that it was laid down by water in a matter of days. 

Small scale tests in tanks show that, in the tanks,  wave action will form patterns that look similar to the sandstones.  That does not show the cross-bedding was formed that way.  The tracks in the sandstone, however, could not have been laid down in the flood.  The tracks at the bottom of the 100 m would have been washed away by the continuing flood depositing the rest of the sandstone. IOW, there is data in the sandstone that can't be there if it was formed by a Flood.

 

[LadyShea]

bump

 

[Smilin]

3rd March 2003 at 12:58 PM lucaspa said this in Post #81 Christians have taken God's word into their hands to manipulate it throughout Judeo-Christianity.  Paul took the OT and manipulated it to give the Christology Christianity has now.  The gospel authors took the OT and manipulated the prophecies of the messiah so that Jesus fit them.  Christians took "God's Word" and manipulated it to back geocentrism. When geocentrism was shown to be false, they adopted new interpretations so that they could accept heliocentrism.  How many of the Laws in the Torah do you adhere to?  Jesus didn't overthrow all of them, but Paul decided that he couldn't get gentiles to follow them, so he quietly dropped them.

a hint of a 'conspiracy theory'????

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:37 AM Smilin said this in Post #84



a hint of a 'conspiracy theory'????

  Nope. Just testing the claim that "we shouldn't take God's word into our own hands to manipulate it" by looking to see if Christians have already done just that.  The claim/hypothesis is false.