-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Genesis
- Thread starter simplyg123
- Start date
- Status
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,919
- 17,828
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
If it is the Whole Truth as you claim that would mean that there is No truth that is missing right ?The rest is just filler that we can use as we see fit.
No, that's probably why His Word doesn't apply to me huh!No, not all of them, but some. They're located in His book and they are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Upvote
0
I would like to remind everyone of the rules here...
2.1 No Flaming
You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).
Thank you.
2.1 No Flaming
You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).
Thank you.
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,919
- 17,828
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
So no truth is missing unless it doesn't talk about that truth. Got ya.
Upvote
0
KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
And people who know geology and geophysics have considered them - and the comments you list above are nonsense.
My question to you is how exactly did you consider them? What skills do you bring to the table than allow you to discern that these things are correct yet the world's geology/geophysics community rejects them as complete rubbish?
LOL - typical - you cut/pasted the list from http://www.freewebs.com/misty_waterflower/creationvsevolution.htm
Upvote
0
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
Then how can anyone say that evolution is true without proof? How can anyone say that cells or DNA exist? How can anyone say that gravity exists? If there is no such thing as "proof" in science then science is not science, but opinion.
I would like to see were you get that 99% from. I've heard on this board a few times that 100% of biologists believe in evolution. I have yet to see where anyone gets this state as of yet.
I know I mentioned this in your Letter To a Pastor Thread, but it would be important to read the context of the passage this verse before using it. I would hate to see people pointing fingers for proof texting if this was not the intent. Funny how often this is an accusation of both sides of the arguement. Oh well!
Upvote
0
in german, Luther translated (1545):
Mark 10:6: "But from the beginning of the creature God made them male and female."
Of what creature? Jesus speaks in the context of human "male and female".
Jesus does not say:
"But from the beginning of the creation of the world God made them male and female." [emph. add]
("creation of the world" appears in Rom 1:20 and this phrase seems to indicate the creation of the whole universe)
On "Blueletterbible.org" search for the greek word "ktisis" (creation,creature; Strong: 2937), read the bible verses and see the different usages of this word.
For my stance on genesis i am now a fully hardcore TE , submitting that "The heavens declare the glory of god and the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." (Psalm 19:1,2)
and "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth but the bible says "look at nature". When we look at nature the data says its old. Plain and simple ...
We should look at nature when we want to learn something about His creation. Not trying to interpret young earth fantasies into Genesis.
Yours sincerely,
Xaero
Upvote
0
Funny you bring up gravity. In science, the Theory of Evolution has much more substantiating evidence than the Theory of Gravity, and nobody is quite sure what gravity is and what causes it yet. If anything, creationists should focus their attention on it...
Upvote
0
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
Where does scripture say to look at creation for the age of the earth?
Upvote
0
KerrMetric
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2005
- 5,171
- 226
- 64
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
No. Science consists of conclusions drawn from evidence. Evidence is the key word, here. Conclusions are fallible; evidence is not. I would highly recommend reading a book about the philosophy of science. Kosso's Reading the Book of Nature is a good start.
I'm sorry that I cannot cite you a source, as I cannot remember where I read it last (might have been The Counter-Creationism Handbook). Regardless, the actual percentage is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Whether the number was 99 or 92, the vast majority of scientists accept evolutionary as established principle.
Regardless of the context, that passage still warns us against thinking as children do. Are we to think only as adults when it comes to speaking in tongues?I know I mentioned this in your Letter To a Pastor Thread, but it would be important to read the context of the passage this verse before using it. I would hate to see people pointing fingers for proof texting if this was not the intent. Funny how often this is an accusation of both sides of the arguement. Oh well!
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
Kosso's Reading the Book of Nature is a good start.
yes it is a good recommendation.
i'd add "The Arch of Knowledge: An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosopy and Methodology of Science" by David Oldroyd to the short list of must reads.
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at Its Seams
by Robert Klee
yes it is a good recommendation.
i'd add "The Arch of Knowledge: An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosopy and Methodology of Science" by David Oldroyd to the short list of must reads.
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at Its Seams
by Robert Klee
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
there is no party line with TE's like there is with YECism. so i can speak only for myself.
Which part of Genesis do TE's actually believe?
i believe all of Genesis, as i do believe all of the Scriptures. my beliefs are indistinguishable from any other conservative reformed Christian. On the topic of Gen 1 i think that the best interpretation is framework. I think Adam is historical and a single individual, as is the confession of my church, however i don't believe he is the physical progenitor of all mankind but the federal head of all human beings and the physical progenitor of the Semitic peoples only, unfortunately (the later phrase is) contrary to the confession.
Which part of Genesis do TE's actually believe?
unfortunately you still have not read the memo that it is a difference in interpretation (and in underlying hermeneutical principles) not in "actually believe" that TE's and YECists in general disagree over the first 5 chapters of Genesis.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and as such has almost no effect on my theology, i'd challenge you to distinguish anything i've written here on CF in more than 5k postings from J.G.Machen, BB. Warfield, J.Calvin or any other reformed Christian, other than the one point that Adam is not the physical father of all humanity.
Upvote
0
I believe the whole of Genesis to be true so far as it teaches us about the nature of God and our relationship with him. The creation account teaches us that God is the creator of all. He has infinite power and majesty. It also teaches us to celebrate the Sabbath and underscores the heritability of sin. The Flood account warns us of God's anger and the story of the Tower of Babel tells us of His jealousy. Regardless of whether the whole of Genesis is historically factual or not, I believe these to be the some of the spiritual truths God wanted us to know (1 Cor 2:13), told in the context and understanding of the time. Go ahead and laugh at that, if you want.
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Like I said in my post:
It is the same word erets, If God judged the whole earth then it makes sense that the survivors of the flood spread out to repopulate planet. But if God judged 'the whole land' then the survivors of the flood spreading over the Ancient Near East, as Genesis describes, makes even more sense.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
