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.
Spot on.No I don't believe that. Have you read anything at all that I've written? The Bible doesn't teach that God created only one person.
I have difficulty with it because IT IS A LIE. No one mutated. No person of one race magically became of another race anymore than an ape magically became a man.
Just to check with you of where we are in this debate: I think you would agree that:
1. breeding produces new kinds of organisms- cattle, dogs, roses, etc. etc.
2. what defines a new kind is that the organism has a new and unique set of characteristics, and that those characteristics are genetic- they are linked to a specific DNA structure in that organism that is passed on from generation to generation.
If you agree that #1 and #2 are correct, then you have already admitted that you believe in evolution! It's really that simple!
No as in a bacterium will never be a rose or a dog or cattle or a man.
No as in a bacterium will never be a rose or a dog or cattle or a man. We already know about adaptation. It is a designed feature. Part of intelligent design. Creationism. Hijacked by Darwinists. Used as evidence against creationism. Now you expect servile compliance.
The races of humans have the ability to adapt. And interbreeding together with conventional minor changes are in consideration, even with a view that more than one man, or even more than one race, was created . The man is multi purpose, and from this perspective, the extent of creation can be assessed.I didn't say that a bacterium will become a rose. I deliberately stayed within one species
So there are many varieties of dogs, cows, people, roses, etc. that have unique genetic characteristics that are carried forward from generation to generation. This is evolution!!
Nobody said that. And yes, the ability for an organism to adapt is called adaptation.This is not adaptation- a guy who works in the salt mines and develops big muscles doesn't have a kid who automatically has big muscles.
In progress. But I asked you how should I be honest and truthful and with "Christian love". I'm guessing it means adherence.I don't expect servile compliance- where did you ever see that??? I only expect what God wants- honesty, truth, humbleness, Christian love.
Jesus wore a shirt with buttons?
You realise you have done just that yourself? You have denied the literal meaning of the flat earth and geocentric passages because you believe man's ideas that the earth is spherical and goes round the sun.
I completely agree with the passage you quote about God's word being truth,
the problem is you have two contradictory methods of dealing God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made." The work He "had made," was the creation of "heavens, earth and all the host." FINISHED, past tense!with apparent conflicts between science and scripture, yet you insist on each one as the only possible way for a believer to approach scripture.
When sceince contradicts the flat earth and geocentric interpretations of scripture, that cannot possible be the real meaning of scripture, the people who interpreted scripture that way must have been mistaken.
Yet when science contradicts the special creation interpretation , you don't say that cannot be what the bible means the interpretation must be a mistake, instead this time you insist the science must be wrong. Why say the interpretation must be wrong for some sciences, and the bible says the science is a lie for other sciences? How do you choose which sciences to believe? It is not because the bible says it evolution is a lie, you could just as easily say the bible says heliocentrism is a lie instead of deciding the interpretation is wrong.
Who say Adam was the beginning of the line to the saviour? The bible doesn't. Remember Luke's genealogy was only 'supposed', and went through Joseph who wasn't Jesus dad.
Oh no, I am not say "after his kind" means choose a partner of your own species, that comes up in other OT commands, Leviticus is quite insistent about that sort of behaviour. But "after his kind" is not about reproduction being restricted to kinds either, it simply means different types of organism.
Yet you are quite happy with the theories Copernicus and Erathostenes.
That's the passage. It also says a thousand years are as a couple of hours in the night, or a human lifespan like a day.
I should hope not, they are just distant cousins. But it is not just the strong similarity, so similar that even creationist cannot decide which skulls are really human and which are ape. More important is the fact that the further back in time you go the more similar we are to other apes. Remember you said:
For evolution to be true there would be evidence everywhere of folks morphing from creatures...there are none. We have skeletal remains of many things from ancient times but...not man and not man in evolving stages. Why? There are none.But that is exactly what we see, the shape of skull changing over millions of years from very clearly ape all the way to modern humans. I am not sure what else you expect in terms of "folks morphing from creatures" than the fossil record we already have.
So rightly dividing the word, can you say which works were finished and which continue?
Psalm 104:29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
Isaiah 41:19 I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive. I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together, 20 that they may see and know, may consider and understand together, that the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it...
Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you...
Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals...
Psalm 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD:
No sorry, my question was what time of day each new day begins.
To be...
Good thing no evolutionary biologist would ever argue something that dumb.
Except it doesn't matter what you think scripture says or doesn't say, UCD is true, we have the fossils, we have the genetics, we win. So again the only options are those three, now if you want to argue for atheism wich is really what your doing, go ahead, but I don't really think thats going to get what you want.
...continued
The question is, does 'after his kind' refer to the verb in the subclause 'whose seed was in itself' or to the main verb 'And the earth brought forth grass, and herb ...and the tree'? It certainly refers to the main verb in all the other passages.
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
If kind referred to reproduction, why was it only mentioned with plants but not with fish and land animals? What you have in each section is
(1) a command to produce these creature or saying God created them
(2) a list of the different main types of creature with a short description of them
(3) we are told this was according to their kind.
But according to their kind refers to the command to produce these different creatures, not the subclauses, unless God is commanding creepy crawlies to creep according to their kind too. If we look back in verses 11&12 trees bearing fruit and herbs bearing seed is simply a more detailed description of the herbs and trees, the same as birds are winged and sea creatures swarm. According to their kind refers to God's command to the earth to sprout vegetation, all the different type of plant according to its kind
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
It is because, unlike English, nouns have masculine or feminine gender which is separate issue from whether the thing itself is male or female. Tree ets is a masculine noun in Hebrew.
But nothing about reproducing according to their kind.
How do you know?
They interpreted the passages literally, just as you do with Adam being made of clay. The sun stopping when Joshua commanded it meant the sun must have been moving across the sky. It say after the miracle the sun hurried to the place it sets. It says God makes the sun rise. Ecclesiastes describes the sun setting and hurrying to the place it rises. The bible also describes the earth bring established and not moving. Christians before Copernicus's time took these passage at face value in its plain literal sense describing the earth fixed in the cosmos with the sun and moon moving across the sky and under the earth when the sun set.
It is called interpretation. They interpreted the passage literally and got it wrong.
The bible is a book made up of many different books. Genesis is a book made up of different books and documents too. Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam.
If it is being told in parable form, it is not telling you the way it actually happened.
Compare God's metaphorical description of crossing the Red Sea with what literally happened.
Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Exodus 15:19 For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea.
Indeed, however 'true' does not mean it has to be literal. Jesus parables are true too. Matt 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."
Scientists realise there is much they do not understand, that is why they are still doing all that research. Creationists seem to think they have things a lot more sewn up, not only knowing exactly how things were made, but frequently have the end of the world figured out tooBut well spotted. I am surprised that verse does not come up more often in these discussions.
It would be pretty difficult to evolve a capacity to reproduce if you were not able to reproduce to evolve it. No, reproduction came first. It was variations in the reproduction that allowed evolution. So to answer your point, from the very beginning the human race was male and female.
Isn't Peter criticising this view?
Oh there is loads of evidence for that too. Not just the gradual change in fossils from early ape to human, but also a whole load of genetic similarities.
Doesn't change the fact there was evidence in the text of Genesis that made Christian and Jewish scholars think Genesis was meant to be interpreted figuratively, while no one saw any indiaction in the geocentric passages that they were not to be take literally.
1Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Too much to hope for that you even consider the possibility that it might be your eyes that need opening.
But no, you seem quite content judging the ideas of others despite having no education on the matter.
Ah yes, 1whirlwind, arbiter of truth, who must answer to no-one....
Seriously, these games are getting tiring. What is your evidence?
You have a high opinion of your opinion, I'll give you that much.
False dichotomy fail. Any other glaring errors you'd like to make today?
I have a high opinion of His Words...you should try it.
To choose Darwin over God is indeed a glaring error...but not one I make.
I do. I'll thank you not to claim that I don't, purely because I disagree with your opinion.
No, you just ignore all the other ones you've made, like imposing a false dichotomy between God's creation and God's account of creation.
Between Man's written account of what God Inspired them to write and what we actually see? YES !!!...snip....
So, there is a difference in God's creation and God's account of creation?
No, according to what is written vs what is actually out their.According to....Darwin?
God didn't write the BibleThe false dichotomy I'm offering here is...His written Word? His written word is different than the event? My goodness..whatever should we be asked to believe (by man) next?
You are on the proverbial...slippery slope. You are accepting man's account over that of God. Your choice of course.
.
It isn't my opinion you disagree with and you should come to grips with that. My opinion isn't written in Genesis.
So, there is a difference in God's creation and God's account of creation? According to....Darwin? The false dichotomy I'm offering here is...His written Word? His written word is different than the event? My goodness..whatever should we be asked to believe (by man) next?
You are on the proverbial...slippery slope. You are accepting man's account over that of God. Your choice of course.
.
Do you know what "false dichotomy" means?
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?