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.
Thanks, appreciate thatIt's been a long day so I must close now but did want to reply to you.
Luke 3:23My understanding of the parentheses is that it denotes a word, phrase, sentence, paragraph or even chapter...that was specially noted in the text and the translators enclosed it parenthetically to keep that very special attention drawn to it. So, a comma wouldn't do the trick.
.
That would be the perfect, which we see back in verse 8 "the man he had formed". What the waw consecutives in verse 18 & 19 tell us is that the verbs occur consecutively.Thanks. I only get a rough idea on what you said.
Now, if 2:19 only suggests that God (has) made animals, then why do you suggest the creation is out of sequence right there? It may well be that God creates animal first, then creates man.
It would mean: "God brings Adam animals He made". Is this right?
I need to say again, it wasn't "an ancient Israelite" that inspired Isaiah to write those words. Truly Crawfish....the idea of anyone reading that verse and understanding it as meaning a flat earth is strange to me. But, perhaps that's because I am a simple person....
Man evolving from apes...is not a truth.
.
Perhaps the Bible's more clear support of Geocentrism is a better topic for WW to answer.
WW, do you agree or disagree that the Bible authors believed in Geocentrism?
And if human evolution is a lie, you should have no problem telling us which of these skull fossils are human and which are ape:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
You could say that, yes. The point is that evolution predicts such a pattern. Special creation doesn't. The explanation you're provided is entirely ad hoc.But one could also explain the origin of those skulls by hypothesizing that they represent two distinct created entities, completely unrelated to each other in terms of evolving from one to another..
That's how they actually perceived it. That's why flat earth and geocentrism concepts existed. We've found artifacts from mesopotamia with a similar image carved in stone from Babylon.
All cultures in that area in those days viewed the world in much the same way. The picture above is an exact rendering of a word for word reading of Genesis.
It's not their fault you don't know the difference between modern ape and common ancestor. And since that information is easily available. It tends to suggest this is a result of willful ignorance.
I say evolution was not even discovered in the bronze age, and the Bible couldn't possibly be talking about it.
I also say that evolution is the reality of the world, despite what creationists want to think. All evidence we have points towards evolution, and away from creationism. Creationism will eventually go the way of flat earthism and geocentrism. Give it a century or so.
There is wilful ignorance...no need to say it is suggested. The question is...on which side?
.
I mostly agree, except that I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation.
But did you not also, from your earliest years, see in drawings and on film, images of a spherical earth. The idea that the earth is spherical is imprinted on the mind of a child in our times well before they even know the word "sphere" and well before most learn to read. So naturally, when they do come to read a phrase like "circle of the earth" they think "sphere" --if not the word, the image.
What if you had never seen such an image of the earth? What if all you had to go by was your personal physical experience of the earth as far as the horizon?
But Isaiah's readers, not having the image of a spherical earth, would not envisage a tent as being spread around the earth. They would envisage the curtains of heaven being spread out over the earth as a tent is spread out over desert sand as a place to dwell in. One does not ordinarily pitch a tent on top of a ball, but looks for a flat place to set it on. That flat place, in Isaiah's image, is the earth.
What about Daniel 4:10 and Matt 4:8? Daniel describes standing on top of a very tall tree and seeing the entire world - something only possible on a flat Eath. Matt describes Satan taking Jesus to a very tall mountain and showing him every kingdom of the world - once again, only possible on a flat Earth.
Perhaps the Bible's more clear support of Geocentrism is a better topic for WW to answer.
WW, do you agree or disagree that the Bible authors believed in Geocentrism?
Thanks, appreciate that
Luke 3:23
CEV When Jesus began to preach, he was about thirty years old. Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph. But his family went back through Heli,
GNB When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,
LITV And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
NIV Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
NASB When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
NLT Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.
YLT And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,
When we see a red, yellow and green light on a pole, we automatically think "stop, yield, go". Do you think an ancient Israelite would EVER come up with this idea to represent those colors? The reason this stuff seems strange is because there are cultural ideas that are so embedded into our thinking that we can't imagine them any other way. It is not a simple process to try and see someone from a completely different time and culture and understand what assumptions we automatically make would be foreign to them. But, make no mistake, there are plenty.
Certainly, God inspired men to write the bible. However, if you do any study it is plainly obvious that God allowed them to write scripture using their own styles, voice, knowledge and worldviews. If you suggest that they wrote things that would not be properly understood for a thousand years or more as discovery of the natural world progressed, then you're also suggesting that God allowed them to misinterpret those verses up until then. You would also think that if God did not want them to hold to the improper worldviews of the time, He would have have the authors use language that did not have ancient implications - like "firmament", which gave a completely different mental image thousands of years ago than it does today.
But Adam, a person of one race, evolving into the multitude of different genetically-distinct races that we see in the world today is fine with you? You can accept the "e" word for those changes?
So aren't we just arguing about how much evolution has been responsible for explaining how the multitude of life forms that we see today came to be? That evolution itself is a pretty well established fact of life?
.
No. I could have chosen one and then I might have heard...cherry picking.
I don't say the Bible trumps science....I say the two need to conform for it to be truth. When science conflicts with Him then...who is wrong?
Nor do I say that the verse is describing a 2D object. It is you saying that.
As for being precise...the Bible is not a test book of science in which geometry is explained.
Instead...see it as written by the One that sits on the earth. He knows.
What is your understanding? Is the earth round?
It is what it is. The earth is round. The circle of the earth means...it is round for the One that inspired the verse is the Creator and He knows it is round.
A circular object is a precisely round orb.
Then...that is a problem. Man didn't write the Bible.
Man has dilly-dallied in the translations of the Bible but as given by God....the text is His Word and has been handed down as such through the generations. Stay as true as possible to that original (and that is difficult in these days) for the truth. Nature doesn't lie nor does His Word lie but man can lie about both and....they do.
I certainly don't blame you for that. To reject science is to reject His handiwork but science is a learning process of what the Creator created. He has not lied about it...we are just given to understand certain things at certain times.
When someone is a "Bible-thumper" about the age of earth, how the races began, the truth about Noah's ark, etc., it simply means things haven't yet been revealed to them.
Man evolving from apes...is not a truth.
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?