SonOfTheWest
Britpack
- Sep 26, 2010
- 1,765
- 66
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Labour
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.
Since the Bible does not support the concept of an earth-centered universe, the authors of the Bible could not have supported this notion.
I would have though the wise choice was to get to know God better.No need to for it isn't me that made that decision. To accept evolution the believer must first believe the creation account is false. Meaning...God lied. So, either God lied or evolution is a lie. God tells us lying about His Word is a really, really, bad thing...evil.
So, my fellow Christians. Choices must be made and...they are ours to make. Decide wisely.
Try Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Took me all of five seconds to find.
Making smartmouth remarks about mystical geocentrism instead of doing a five-second google search.
geocentrism
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Cabal....I did as you suggested and pulled up Mirriam-Webster online. This is what came up.....
Huh? This is certainly a different interpretation of the Bible. I think most (all?) Biblical scholars would agree that God created Adam, along with other creatures living on the land, on the sixth day of creation. Creation was finished, done by the end of the 6th day- which is why God then rested on the 7th day.
Certainly Luke 3:38 makes it clear that Adam was the first human being. So that would make it impossible that, as you say, Adam was formed on the eighth day, and all other races, mankind, on the sixth.
But you're really evading the question- there could only have been one first created human being- who was Adam- and he had to be either a white person, a black person, chinese, etc. This means that all other races were a product of evolution- the original genes in Adam were modified (evolved) to produce the multitude of races that we see today.
Googled: "merriam-webster geocentrism"
First result: Geocentric - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(different conjugation, but same thing)
Can we stop being literalistic with the dictionary now as well as the Bible and address the point?
I would have though the wise choice was to get to know God better.
This is the same God who said he carried the Israelites out of Egypt on eagle's wings.
Was that true? Is it a lie? Or is there a third possibility?
Jesus told us he was a grapevine.
Is that true? Was he lying, or hallucinating? Or is there another option?
We learn about the Father through Jesus and Jesus loved to speak in parables and metaphors.
Thank you....I saw geocentric and thought it should still provide a definition for geocentrism. I find that odd actually.
As for the point? It has been addressed, has it not?
I am certainly not going to argue against a figurative interpretation of GenesisI see the plants, animals, etc. associated with the man Adam as having to do with farming. I also see them figuratively...symbolic of people.
You took the genealogy in Matthew and tacked on half the genealogy in Luke, that sounds reconstructed to meNo, I don't see it as reconstructed. There are some generations left out, there is the lineage of Joseph and there are other seeming discrepencies. It is a study in and of itself.
Fair enough, and if you want to start another thread on the topic feel free.Please keep it in a separate thread...this is too much for my old brain to concentrate on at one time.
Be careful not to read too much into a simple difference in style and vocabulary between Gen 1 & 2.There were plants, etc. on the third day...just not the plants written of in chapter two.
Genesis 1:11-13 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
In the first chapter they were simply shown as grass, trees, etc. In the second they are "of the field."
Glad you don't insist on the last part, a lot of creationists do, along with there being no rainbows until after the flood either. but as you realise, the text does not actually say that.I understand it differently. "The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth." "There went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." So, to me, there was still no rain when Adam was formed. Who knows, maybe there was no rain until the flood.
Do the herbs have seeds? Then they are the same plants we read about in Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.There were plants, literal foliage, created on the third day. Then....
2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:
What are they?
Ah yes my favourite pro evolution verse, Solomon realising we are animals too. Interestingly, Solomon had pet apes so he was in a good position to make the comparison.Here you again have "of the field." In chapter one we had "beasts of the earth," but now they are "beasts of the field." Remember....Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
Paul is talking about Adam as part of the natural creation, the spiritual which comes after is our new creation in Christ.We have mankind and then Adam. We have literal plants and animals and then we have plants and beasts - people. Chapter 1, chapter 2.1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
You are mistaking after their kind as meaning able to reproduce more of their kind, it doesn't, it simply means different kinds of animals. And that is what evolution produced.Because they were created to "bring forth abundantly after their kind." From the get-go they were male/female and able to produce.
Written history only tells us how long man has been able to write, but man has been around a lot longer than that.Although this earth is ancient...this earth age isn't. His six days of creation was either six literal days or six thousand years. The history of man doesn't allow for anything else.
We never ceased to be apes, we have never ceased to be primates and mammals. Evolution is never about organisms leaving their families, but the families becoming more complex, the children and grandchildren having families of their own, but they never cease to be part of the earlier family.I see no problem either. They are still birds in their various families. It is a species becoming another species (ape to man) that I deny.
That's the thing. No one is suggesting he lied. If the creation accounts are metaphor or poetry then they are not lies.That is always the wisest of all things.
Indeed and as He opens our eyes and ears the language becomes clearer and clearer. However, within His parables and metaphors you will not find where He lied.
Usually he warned against the scripture interpretations of menNor will you find where He asked us to listen to man over His Word, including what He spoke in parables and metaphors. Instead He asks us to understand them and warns against the teaching of man.
In other words as his disciples we are supposed to be able to understand the mysteries hidden in metaphor and parable. Or at least, like his disciples, learn to understand as we spend time with our Lord.I would also mention that we are to understand more fully as He speaks to us directly...we are to know the mysteries.
Matthew 13:10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given..
Not really. "Geocentric" = adjective. "Geocentrism" = noun. It's quite simple.
It has been brought up several times, but not addressed. What makes geocentrists any different from modern day YECs? They are focusing on their "literal" interpretation of very small segments of the Bible, and are totally at odds with what science shows to be correct.
The two, Bible and science, shouldn't conflict. Science can and does more fully explain God's world but the Bible should keep us on the right path and not prone to accepting what science wrongly decides.
I provided all definitions of the word "circle." I chose the one that properly fit the Biblical verse.
What evidence? These "arguments" about a circle being round are truly laughable to me. But, if you want to believe that they thought the earth was flat and that God too thought the earth was flat then....okay. I have had enough discussion on this particular topic. Perhaps if it is important enough to have taken several pages then it deserves it's very own thread. After all, it has nothing to do with evolution.
No, I am not in denial. I replied that it is our Father that spoke with Isaiah and it is He that tells us about the "circle of the earth."
No need to for it isn't me that made that decision. To accept evolution the believer must first believe the creation account is false.
Meaning...God lied. So, either God lied or evolution is a lie. God tells us lying about His Word is a really, really, bad thing...evil.
So, my fellow Christians. Choices must be made and...they are ours to make. Decide wisely.
Yes indeed it is. Much, much older than that. As for life, it depends upon which life we are speaking of. That of dinosaurs or man.
That was a good one.
To see that the circle of the earth means the earth is round doesn't take a scientist to explain. No one is making a scientific claim on it.
You believe that the circle of the earth needs interpretation?
Not having scientific knowledge I would agree with. Biblical knowledge I have...still learning but I have some. At least enough to know a circle is round.
I guess because He thought we were smart enough to understand...the earth is circular and the earth is round.
Shoddy, illogical foundation. Genesis 1 and 2...shoddy and illogical?
Which is?
I know...that is what worries me.
If you see it as flawed and I see yours as a lie then...what is the point? There is one truth on this...only one.
From all of this questioning about a flat earth I would assume your concept of evolution somehow hangs in the balance???
If you want to believe God was STUPID and considered His CREATION as being flat when He created it then....okay.
He tells us what is meant by six days. It is literally true but one must understand what the "day" is.
.
I am certainly not going to argue against a figurative interpretation of GenesisThe problem is with the literal interpretation. If Genesis 2 is symbolic there is no contradiction with Genesis 1. The problem is if Genesis 2 is literal, or both symbolic and literal, because it is the literal interpretation that contradicts the order of creation in the first creation account. When did God create all the birds of the air? Was it after he created man when he saw Adam was alone as Genesis 2 tells us, or did God create the birds of the air on the fifth day, before God created beasts and man, as we are told in Genesis 1? Like I said it is fine if the real meaning is figurative, not if it is meant literally or both literally and figuratively.
You took the genealogy in Matthew and tacked on half the genealogy in Luke, that sounds reconstructed to me
Fair enough, and if you want to start another thread on the topic feel free.
Be careful not to read too much into a simple difference in style and vocabulary between Gen 1 & 2.
Genesis 1 uses 'beasts of the earth' 'fish of the sea' and 'birds of the air'.
Genesis 2&3 likes to uses the description 'of the field', we have 'herb of the field', 'plant of the field', 'beast of the field', the snake is describe as a 'beast of the field' and part of Adam's curse is to eat the 'herb of the field'. Genesis 2 however describes birds as 'birds of the air' like Genesis 1.
The list of what God creates is incomplete in both accounts, Genesis 1 for example never mentions mushrooms or seaweed, there is no mention of flightless birds either, ostriches and penguins. That does not mean it is say God did not create them. Instead each act of creation mentions three representative type of organism:
grass, herbs and trees
sun, moon and stars
sea monsters, swarming fish and birds
beasts of the earth, cattle and creepy crawlies
(what happened to earthworms?)
And while they are not exhaustive lists, they stand for God creating everything, lock, stock and barrel, as it were.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
The second creation account is just as universal in its declaration of God as creator: every beast of the field... every bird of the air... every living creature... all livestock.
It is just that all these living creatures are created in a different order to Genesis 1.
Glad you don't insist on the last part, a lot of creationists do, along with there being no rainbows until after the flood either. but as you realise, the text does not actually say that.
Do the herbs have seeds? Then they are the same plants we read about in Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
Were the fruit trees in Genesis 1 pretty?
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.
So when did God make the birds of the air, on day five before he created man and beast or did he create 'every bird of the air' after he created man
Ah yes my favourite pro evolution verse, Solomon realising we are animals too. Interestingly, Solomon had pet apes so he was in a good position to make the comparison.
Paul is talking about Adam as part of the natural creation, the spiritual which comes after is our new creation in Christ.
You are mistaking after their kind as meaning able to reproduce more of their kind, it doesn't, it simply means different kinds of animals. And that is what evolution produced.
Lev 11:13 These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
14 and the kite and the falcon in its kind,
15 every raven in its kind.
This is not talking about how the birds reproduced, but the different varieties of bird you could and couldn't eat.
Written history only tells us how long man has been able to write, but man has been around a lot longer than that.
We never ceased to be apes, we have never ceased to be primates and mammals. Evolution is never about organisms leaving their families, but the families becoming more complex, the children and grandchildren having families of their own, but they never cease to be part of the earlier family.
That's the thing. No one is suggesting he lied. If the creation accounts are metaphor or poetry then they are not lies.
Usually he warned against the scripture interpretations of menAs for human wisdom and understanding he did not seem to have a problem with that.
Matt 16:2 He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.'
3 And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.
Luke 12:54 He also said to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, 'A shower is coming.' And so it happens.
55 And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be scorching heat,' and it happens.
56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?
In other words as his disciples we are supposed to be able to understand the mysteries hidden in metaphor and parable. Or at least, like his disciples, learn to understand as we spend time with our Lord.
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?