Genesis

[Melethiel]

yes he is God, But in the form of man, he talked like man, walked like man and spoke like man. God did these things as God not man

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that God, before the Incarnation, did not use parables. What then would you call all the prophesies in, for example, Isaiah, or the story that Nathan told to David? Or the dreams and their various interpretations that abound in the Old Testament?

 

[simplyg123]

not sure, i said to my knowledge, apparently i am wrong, and i will admit that. I do not know, but neither does anyone else, and to claim to KNOW for certain in wrong.

Theory is nothing in the end God will reveal all

 

[pgp_protector]

not sure, i said to my knowledge, apparently i am wrong, and i will admit that. I do not know, but neither does anyone else, and to claim to KNOW for certain in wrong.

Theory is nothing in the end God will reveal all

And do you know that for a fact ?

 

[simplyg123]

Dan 2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

according to this there is a god in heaven that reveals secrets, i do not know if he will reveal them to me

 

[KerrMetric]

according to this there is a god in heaven that reveals secrets, i do not know if he will reveal them to me

But I don't think geology and astronomy fall under the domain of secrets in this sense.

 

[pgp_protector]

Dan 2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

according to this there is a god in heaven that reveals secrets, i do not know if he will reveal them to me

Actually it says that he revealed secrets to the king Nebuchadnezzar.

After a secret is reviled is it still a secret ?

 

[gluadys]

Note that my poll revealed the beliefs of people, not their knowledge. What they believe in their heart is simply more imortant to them than what they should believe in their head. This would make them more spiritual than intellectual. Is that a bad thing?

There is no reason why being spiritual should excuse ignorance, especially wilful ignorance.

 

[Deamiter]

yes he is God, But in the form of man, he talked like man, walked like man and spoke like man. God did these things as God not man

Are you then claiming that God did NOT use men to write the old testement? Are you claiming that God posessed the authors and forced them to write instead of inspiring their minds and allowing them to communicate as best they could?

God used humans to convey his messages not just by posessing their hands for a while, but by leading them in a relationship. ALL these humans used their culture and their language -- which in the time of the Old Testement was focused solely on morals and stories, not on factual, scientific, or historical details as we are today.

Perhaps God had not yet been man (though many think God is not bounded by time) but unless you dispute that he used inspired authors rather than just posessing their fingers to write the Bible, the content is VERY much culture-specific.

*EDIT* I posted this before noticing that there was another page of posts... It's already been addressed so this is probably a post to skip.

 

[simplyg123]

i suggested no such thing, i totally agree with everything you have said, i was speaking of jesus in the flesh. He was God in the form of man. that is all i claimed, do you deny that?

 

[CouldiEver]

Why don't you do this experiment.

Get a 70 year old electromagnetism textbook and compare it to a new one.

Repeat with a mechanics text.

Repeat with a statistical mechanics book.

Now get a 40 year old atomic physicss text.

Compare to a new one.

etc etc etc


You will see that they change hardly at all.



By the way - this is NOT opinion. There was no bias in my comment.

The only bias here is the bias that you don't know a thing about science and how it works and proceeds. There is the bias!

Actually, I think that he is right. I think that he is obviously talking about microbe/molecules-to-man evolution, and not operations science (e.g. physics and so on), which goes on in the present. Particularly since this is in the origins theology section... Your bias affected your ability to understand what he simply wrote and was referring to.

Compare what a biology textbook even several years old says about evolution to what evolutionists believe now. It changes so fast and biology textbooks can't keep up; for example, several years ago I was looking at a biology textbook brand new and it still had embryonic recapitulation as evidence for evolution, which has been rejected by evolutionists for the better part of almost 50 years! I even found this same evidence for evolution in the Natural History Museum of Sydney when I went down there for a school excursion! God forbid if we compare modern beliefs to a textbook speaking on the same issue from the 40s or even earlier.

 

[savedfromdistruction]

simplyg123,
you are correct about a young creation. I have a video on my web page that deals with this. Feel free to visit and watch. God bless

 

[KerrMetric]

and not operations science (e.g. physics and so on), which goes on in the present

You've been reading to much AIG propaganda. That stupid "operations science" phrase smacks of Safarti and his nonsense.

There is no such delineation in science - this is a false construct of creationists.

Compare what a biology textbook even several years old says about evolution to what evolutionists believe now. It changes so fast and biology textbooks can't keep up; for example, several years ago I was looking at a biology textbook brand new and it still had embryonic recapitulation as evidence for evolution, which has been rejected by evolutionists for the better part of almost 50 years! I even found this same evidence for evolution in the Natural History Museum of Sydney when I went down there for a school excursion! God forbid if we compare modern beliefs to a textbook speaking on the same issue from the 40s or even earlier.

Are you sure you are stating the embryonic comments correctly. Recapitualtion theory of Haeckel is long since dead BUT that there is a connection between phylogeny and ontogeny is not dead. Biologists do not reject this in the manner creationists want you to believe.

 

[gluadys]

. Biologists do not reject this in the manner creationists want you to believe.

True. In fact, evolutionary development (study of embryology as it relates to evolution) is one of the cutting edges of evolutionary science today and contributing a lot to the understanding of evolution.

A very readable popular work on the field is Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carroll.

 

[Gus2009]

My Friend you think too much

I suppose this is some sort of last ditch defense mechanism.

Can somone be right, too much?

 

[FranciscanJ]

Simply, you really are hilarious. I love how you broke out that verse, it just about had me falling off my chair in laughter. Maybe because you remind me of myself a while back. You seem like a good guy who believes God.

But you seem to think that reading Genesis as anything other than literal young earth history makes Him a liar. This is simply nonsense, and we who tell you this are not from the devil. No one is trying to take your faith in God Almighty. I and others here have faith in Him too, and want to serve Him our entire life.

I really think that when it comes down to it, it is not the science of evolution that is a problem for you, but reconciling it with God's inspired word. It really is not a problem unless you make it one.

Coming as you are with your preconcieved notions of "the only way to read Genesis", you have unknowingly helped propagate the confusion that you where taught.

I suggest that you ask some of these wise folks about how Genesis and evolution don't have to be a problem, rather than assume they are all trying to take your faith.

Much Respect--

 

[simplyg123]

Simply, you really are hilarious. I love how you broke out that verse, it just about had me falling off my chair in laughter. Maybe because you remind me of myself a while back. You seem like a good guy who believes God.

But you seem to think that reading Genesis as anything other than literal young earth history makes Him a liar. This is simply nonsense, and we who tell you this are not from the devil. No one is trying to take your faith in God Almighty. I and others here have faith in Him too, and want to serve Him our entire life.

I really think that when it comes down to it, it is not the science of evolution that is a problem for you, but reconciling it with God's inspired word. It really is not a problem unless you make it one.

Coming as you are with your preconcieved notions of "the only way to read Genesis", you have unknowingly helped propagate the confusion that you where taught.

I suggest that you ask some of these wise folks about how Genesis and evolution don't have to be a problem, rather than assume they are all trying to take your faith.

Much Respect--

thanks for the compliments, but honestly, my mind isnt made up, i lean toward young earth, mainly just because i just havent seen a old earth creation theory, that wasnt shot down by a young earth theory.

Overall, i wont let it be a problem, knowing all the answers of creation, wont get me into heaven. Trying to figure it out, in my oppinion, is more for ones own entertainment.

 

[Deamiter]

thanks for the compliments, but honestly, my mind isnt made up, i lean toward young earth, mainly just because i just havent seen a old earth creation theory, that wasnt shot down by a young earth theory.

Overall, i wont let it be a problem, knowing all the answers of creation, wont get me into heaven. Trying to figure it out, in my oppinion, is more for ones own entertainment.

Very good that you won't let it be a problem!

You say you haven't seen an old earth creation theory that wasn't shot down by a young earth theory. I suggest that this is probably largely because scientists don't spend their time preaching to the masses (in this case, via websites) but instead publish in journals for other people who want to read peer-reviewed research.

Anyway, I'm not a biologist, but I do study physics and I have studied things like dating techniques and in particular, evidence (or lack thereof) relating to a global flood. Would you be interested if I started a thread in a day or two with a pretty comprehensive OP on the total lack of evidence for a global flood? Or is that not one of the "old earth theories" you think has been shot down?

You would, of course, be totally free to challenge any of the things in the OP or bring up related topics. I'd only ask that before you question a particular point, you read through the source (which I've hopefully cited) so my efforts to cite sources aren't wasted.

 

[simplyg123]

Very good that you won't let it be a problem!

You say you haven't seen an old earth creation theory that wasn't shot down by a young earth theory. I suggest that this is probably largely because scientists don't spend their time preaching to the masses (in this case, via websites) but instead publish in journals for other people who want to read peer-reviewed research.

Anyway, I'm not a biologist, but I do study physics and I have studied things like dating techniques and in particular, evidence (or lack thereof) relating to a global flood. Would you be interested if I started a thread in a day or two with a pretty comprehensive OP on the total lack of evidence for a global flood? Or is that not one of the "old earth theories" you think has been shot down?

You would, of course, be totally free to challenge any of the things in the OP or bring up related topics. I'd only ask that before you question a particular point, you read through the source (which I've hopefully cited) so my efforts to cite sources aren't wasted.

sounds good

 

[jds1977]

Global flood...hmmm...Moses spoke of it; Jesus told us if we can't believe Moses' words, we can't believe His words...and good ol Peter spoke of it. Soooo, are Moses, Jesus and Peter liars? or do we get to pick and choose what belongs in the bible? I don't like my neighbor, maybe I'll throw that thou shalt not kill stuff out...hahaha jk

 

[KerrMetric]

Global flood...hmmm...Moses spoke of it; Jesus told us if we can't believe Moses' words, we can't believe His words...and good ol Peter spoke of it. Soooo, are Moses, Jesus and Peter liars? or do we get to pick and choose what belongs in the bible? I don't like my neighbor, maybe I'll throw that thou shalt not kill stuff out...hahaha jk

So you have a tape or video of Jesus "saying" this?
And it was people that did pick and choose what belongs in the Bible. How else do you explain the mess called Revelation being in the Canon? You don't think Jesus selected the Canon do you?