The word kind means just that; the kind of animal it is.The inability of creationists to define what a Biblical kind is has been remarked on CF before. A Biblical kind apparently means whatever creationists want it to mean at the moment.
The word kind means just that; the kind of animal it is.
The Bible doesn't classify into species or subspecies.
Asking people to define what the Bible does not define is an exercise in speculation.
In the Bible all things which are made are God-made. Sharing the same Creator, they share the same origin.
It is not a biological classification. The Bible is not a science book. If anything, it's a book that proves natural law yields to the will of the Creator.The problem is that in practice a Biblical "kind" means whatever a Creationist wants it to mean at the moment. It doesn't mean much of anything.
It is not a biological classification. The Bible is not a science book. If anything, it's a book that proves natural law yields to the will of the Creator.
The classification of animals into categories is man's folly. It began with Aristotle and his book "History of animals," Aristotle did not not believe in evolution. He believed in a hierarchy of living things that shared no common history.The Bible is not a science book. That's why the notion of a Biblical "kind" is a meaningless concept. If that's supposed to be the basis of opposition to evolution, there is no reason to question evolution.
The classification of animals into categories is man's folly. It began with Aristotle and his book "History of animals," Aristotle did not not believe in evolution. He believed in a hierarchy of living things that shared no common history.
The reason we know that evolution is a lie is that the Bible tells us the world was created mature in six days; that death and sin came into the world through one man; that all living things were saved through the actions of one man and that mankind has the offer of salvation through one man. This is what the word of God teaches us. Evolution is heresy and its proponents are false teachers. Evolution teaches contrary to the word of God and as such cannot possibly have its roots in truth.
I do.You say that evolution is heresy.
In regards to Jesus, the prophesies were fulfilled and the will of the Father was carried out. As for the Jews, some accepted that Christ was the Messiah and became Christians, and others did not.How did following doctrine work out for Jesus and the Jews?
We had accurate data that an ax head could not float, that a man could not walk on water, that a man could not calm a storm, that a man could neither raise the dead nor return from the dead, that you couldn't feed 5,000 people with a few fish and bread loaves and have more left over than when you began, that the seas could be parted etc. In fact, there are 333 miracles in the Bible, none of which are scientifically possible. You either reject them all, you accept them all, or you devise some arbitrary method by which you accept some miracles and reject others. It is the lack of faith that causes you to reject God's word, not some enlightened scientific discoveries. That which is impossible today was equally impossible thousands of years ago.IF you have scientific observational proof that everything in our universe is older that ~6000 years. We (man) have to self reflect and see if we (man) have misunderstood or made poor conclusions that was taught for a very long time, because we had no accurate data to the contrary.
In other words, it keeps them from doubting their Bible and instead putting their faith in the words of men.The most common rebuttal by a YEC is supernatural, this argument disregards the complexity, beauty, and understanding of our impressive planet! This also keeps people from self-reflecting as to the accuracy of their biblical teachings or conclusions,
In regards to Jesus, the prophesies were fulfilled and the will of the Father was carried out. As for the Jews, some accepted that Christ was the Messiah and became Christians, and others did not.
We had accurate data that an ax head could not float, that a man could not walk on water, that a man could not calm a storm, that a man could neither raise the dead nor return from the dead, that you couldn't feed 5,000 people with a few fish and bread loaves and have more left over than when you began, that the seas could be parted etc. In fact, there are 333 miracles in the Bible, none of which are scientifically possible. You either reject them all, you accept them all, or you devise some arbitrary method by which you accept some miracles and reject others. It is the lack of faith that causes you to reject God's word, not some enlightened scientific discoveries. That which is impossible today was equally impossible thousands of years ago.
In other words, it keeps them from doubting their Bible and instead putting their faith in the words of men.
That's why I used the word heresy. You are here teaching people to ignore their Bibles and believe what you tell them.
I was raised an old earth creationists by a mother who was sure the earth was millions of years old. The trouble is, I could never find a single verse in the Bible to support this claim. The only way to pretend evolution happened is to completely reject the teaching of Genesis. Unfortunately, Christ quoted frequently from Genesis and told us that if we didn't believe the words of Moses we would never believe His words. There's no way to justify a complete rejection of Genesis without pretending that Jesus was, Himself, deceived. What you claim is 100% contrary to the word of God.
"Have you not read that from they beginning they were created male and female?"Christ did not quote from the Creation story, for whatever reason.
Should they be the subject of every passage?In the Gospels, Adam is mentioned in a geneology in Luke, and no where else. Eve is never mentioned. Noah is mentioned only in passing: "As in the days of Noah ..."
Neither are airplanes. What's your point?The Garden of Eden isn't mentioned in the Gospels, either.
He also said that man should live by EVERY WORD that came from the mouth of God.Jesus did put forward Abraham, Isaac and Jacob along with Moses as revered figures form the Old Testament.
We had accurate data that an ax head could not float, that a man could not walk on water, that a man could not calm a storm, that a man could neither raise the dead nor return from the dead, that you couldn't feed 5,000 people with a few fish and bread loaves and have more left over than when you began, that the seas could be parted etc. In fact, there are 333 miracles in the Bible, none of which are scientifically possible. You either reject them all, you accept them all, or you devise some arbitrary method by which you accept some miracles and reject others. It is the lack of faith that causes you to reject God's word, not some enlightened scientific discoveries. That which is impossible today was equally impossible thousands of years ago.
He also said that man should live by EVERY WORD that came from the mouth of God.
To which words would these refer?
What matters is not what is traditionally taught, but what is true. We affirm the truth by going to the Word, not via the opinions of man. The Word tells us that man was created by God; that sin and death came into the world through Adam's sin, and therefor since there was no death there could be no evolution. Changing the word of God to conform to the theories of man doesn't make for a stronger belief, it makes for a rejection of God's word. Not that what I say I can validate through Scriptures. Nothing said contrary to the Scriptures contains truth. That's why man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God.Your argument is that we (Christians) know the words well enough that no reflection is necessary, as that could alter what has been "traditionally" thought or taught. Which view seems to be arrogant?
Catastrophism. Mount St. Helens volcano made a small scale version of the grand canyon in a very short time, complete with many layers.
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?