Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[smaneck]

Genesis absolutely is true in everything it says.

It absolutely is not a parable, or a symbolic story.
"If Jesus was (and is) both the Creator God and a perfect man, then His pronouncements are always and absolutely trustworthy. And Jesus referred directly to details in each of the first seven chapters of Genesis fifteen times.

Uh, you realize that Jesus spoke in parables too?

Peter spent three years traveling in the company of Jesus Christ Himself. Then Peter was a witness to Jesus' death and the bodily resurrection. Peter and the other disciples also received extraordinary ability and authority with the gift of God's Holy Spirit. Thus the books of the New Testament that bear his name not only come from his pen, but have the authority of God.

How does the fact Peter traveled with Jesus for three years prove he wrote 2 Peter. Even the early Church Father's were divided on this question and most modern scholars would say he did not.

But good you can cut and paste.

 

[smaneck]

You claim Tigers and Lions are separate species - yet they produce fertile offspring.

No, their offspring are not usually fertile.

 

[smaneck]

Noah preached for a hundred years about the coming flood before God sent the actual flood.

Since you insist on reading the Bible literally then explain this to me? How many people did Noah actually preach to? Did he preach to people living in China? India? America? Siberia? Europe? If not, how fair was that to them?

Over a hundred years ago there was a dialogue between the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam and the Baha'i scholar Mirza Abu'l-Fadl over Noah. Mirza Abu'l-Fadl pointed out that the Qur'anic story of Noah was derived from the Bible. He went on to say:

"It is clear that the prophets and Manifestations of the Cause of God were sent to guide the nations, to improve their characters, and to bring the people nearer to their Source and ultimate Goal. They were
not sent as historians, astronomers, philosophers, or natural scientists. . . . Therefore, the prophets have indulged the people in regard to their historical notions, folk stories, and scientific principles, and have spoken to them according to these. . . . A rational human being will therefore have no doubt that those things mentioned in the Holy Qu'ran, such as how the creation commenced, the debate of the angels, the stories of Adam, of Satan, and of Noah and the flood, are all realities. These speak of repeated promises to
renew the world and refer to the appointed times for the expiration (through the advent of the primal Holy Reality and the renewal of divine laws) of the terms allotted to the nations. But from the point of view of science, it is impermissible for the historian to depend on the literal meaning of these verses."

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Given the DNA studies that have been done over the last few years...the fossil record is NOT even needed to show evolution. We know that ALL humans came from Africa, and adapted to their environment. We know the indigenous people here in the Western Hemisphere are related to the people of Asia, genetically. We know that having blue eyes is a genetic mutation that can be pinpointed in time. The study of plate tectonics tells us that at one time all the land was gathered into one mass and has broken up over millions of years. We also know that the Pacific Ocean is growing while the Atlantic is shrinking.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that the bible is not a science text? Understanding evolution does nothing to denigrate one's faith. Acknowledging the immensity and the beauty of what we see is seeing God in it. Understanding the "Big Bang" theory takes me back to the uncaused first cause...who caused that? I believe God did it. Understanding science does nothing to undermine my faith at all.

 

[smaneck]

What if the flood meant that the linage of Jesus Christ would not be tainted?

Isn't the Immaculate Conception supposed to take care of that?

 

[SkyWriting]

More than that. It is based on the examination of the empirical evidence. The more evidence found, the more solid a scientific theory becomes so long as no contrary evidence is located.

While I appreciate your view, I can't find any support for it.

The real process of science - Understanding Science

 

[RedPonyDriver]

While I appreciate your view, I can't find any support for it.

The real process of science - Understanding Science

That is a very simplified explanation. The truth is, when it comes to a scientific hypothesis...if there is ONE experiment that gives different results, then the hypothesis is automatically considered to be false. For something to go from a hypothesis to a theory, the experiments must be repeatable. In other words, if you do the same experiment 100 times and only get the same answer 99 times, then the hypothesis is considered false or disproved. Evolution has been studied for many years. As science progresses, the understanding progresses and the methods of understanding evolution progresses.

Unless and until you REALLY understand (or wish to understand) what a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory is, you will not understand how science works. I would strongly suggest some self-education on the topic.

 

[smaneck]

While I appreciate your view, I can't find any support for it.

Probably because you've never really studied biology.

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting said: ↑
History is past events taken on "faith in the reliability" of the writer.

Wrong. Historians look at the evidence not simply the reliability of the writer. (I'm a historian by profession.)

That being the case, you might be able to respond with
an actual definition for history as a rebuttal to my comment.

 

[smaneck]

That being the case, you might be able to respond with
an actual definition for history as a rebuttal to my comment.

I'm not sure why a definition of history rather than an explanation of what historians do would serve as a rebuttal to your argument. I would define history as the study of the things of the past which matter most to us humanly speaking. I've certainly never heard the definition you offered.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Why do people without any sort of scientific background attempt to argue science?

 

[mickiio]

Perhaps to him "love" is continuing to allow the Canaanites to burn their babies on the altars of Moloch.

We just burn ours in abortions...and then sell the body parts. Just because God chooses not to judge on YOUR timeline, does not mean he won't.

Look, your god is supposed to be omnipotent. Whatever the difference between 'sinful' and 'tainted' is, I'm sure he could manage that without killing almost everybody on the planet. I mean... it's not like Jesus' lineage was sinless.

All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Romans 3:23 Jesus is the ONLY one that was sinless. That is why we need him. That is why He died, to be the perfect sacrifice and make us right with the Father. The Father can only have holiness near Him. Sin can only be washed by blood. For Adam's skin covering he had to kill an animal. For Israel's sacrifices they had to sacrifice an animal. Jesus was the Lamb of God sacrificed once and for all for those who choose Him and love Him.

You could be in line for a Nobel prize, for proving Noah's flood.

No other geologist has been able to do so, congrats!

If you think that is graded without bias you live in a dream world. Graded by Evolutionists. There will be no Nobel Peace prize. With sea shells on the tops of mountains ALL OVER THE WORLD, I would call that decent evidence. Explaining it away with "tectonic activity" is just bad science. More "fairy dust".

 

[stevevw]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

The bible is the words of humans inspired by God. So they may have visions or revelations about God and they are relaying them the best way they can as humans. Its like if you are inspired by someone or something to write about an event. So the thing that inspired you is what is influencing what you write and see.

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiential evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

The bible isn't a scientific record of things. Though it may have some insights into how life stated it doesn't go into any scientific explanations about things. If it says that in the beginning there was darkness an then there was light it is really just saying that there was nothing and then God brought existence into reality because he is God. Science may explain that existence started with the big bang and some say that was the light that the bible mentions. Science cannot explain what was before nothing and the bible claims that God through His creative powers was able to make something out of nothing. So this goes beyond any scientific explanation and we shouldn't try to prove the bible with scientific explanations.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

When I look at the stars and the universe I see Gods creative work. Even though I know that science can explain many things that happen in that universe explanations on their own have no creative ability. Science may be just pulling apart Gods creation and trying to explain it away. But when I look at the amazing things like the universe I know there is more to it than the scientific explanation that are presented. This is the inspiration of God and that everyone has this knowledge in them.

 

[smaneck]

The bible is the words of humans inspired by God. So they may have visions or revelations about God and they are relaying them the best way they can as humans. Its like if you are inspired by someone or something to write about an event. So the thing that inspired you is what is influencing what you write and see.

That is a sensible way of looking at biblical inspiration.

 

[stevevw]

That is a sensible way of looking at biblical inspiration.

I dont believe God planted word for word the bible in anyone's head. I dont think the bible is claimed to be the word for word of God in the way that every word was what God said. The bible says all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,. Its not a science book. 2 Timothy 3:16. To me God breathed means God inspired. Not Gods actual words and not all our words but a mixture of both which still relays a message about God. They are words inspired from God and filtered through our human perspective. That is why some of the scripture may seem contradictory. Thats because each person will apply what God is showing them form their perspective.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not sure why a definition of history rather than an explanation of what historians do would serve as a rebuttal to your argument. I would define history as the study of the things of the past which matter most to us humanly speaking. I've certainly never heard the definition you offered.

Again, an informal opinion for a definition.
If you're just offering your opinion, then my
statement cannot be wrong, that's why.

 

[SkyWriting]

Probably because you've never really studied biology.

That may be biological history, which is another science-fiction category.
That's when people round up some well accepted ideas, then mash them
together to create a believable, often romantic science-fiction story about
the past.

"Past events no longer exist in a real and tangible sense. Past events are abstract concepts. The only items that exist are what is currently present; however, if the past can be characterized to “exist” in any form, it is in the form of 1) memory or 2) record. We have the capacity to remember what happened. We also have the capacity to record what happened by writing it down (or typing it on paper or in a computer), by audio and video recordings, and by images. If there was no one to remember or record certain past events, those past events cannot be known.

Furthermore, the past is complex. Even the past concerning one person or item is complex. Over time, unique phenomena occur to that person or item that are never repeated in exactlythe same way. Then consider the past involving multiple people, multiple objects, multiple events throughout the entire universe — events that were both observable and not observable. The past is exceedingly complex and beyond the reach of the human imagination in its exceeding complexity. We do not come close to knowing (the truth of) past events."

 

[SkyWriting]

That is a very simplified explanation.

No, it is not simplified in any way. And if it were, how would that matter?

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_02

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Perhaps to him "love" is continuing to allow the Canaanites to burn their babies on the altars of Moloch.

That thought never entered His mind for them to do such a thing.

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/32-35.htm

Apparently you are not conversant with "free-will" and what that means. So you want to blame God for thoughts that never entered His mind? So the next terrorist act I can blame on you? God gave Satan reign to try to prove his point - that man does not need God. Man himself decided he did not need God as well when he chose to disobey. This is your time to prove yourself - what you do is totally up to you. If you choose to burn babies it is no one's fault but your own. Recompense will come due at the end.

The problem is you are thinking with such a limited mind - and have not the power to raise them from the dead to a new life - so of course you think what time they had was cut short. The only thing that was cut short was the time they would have to spend in this life while others choose to perpetuate misery on others of their own "free-will".

I suppose if it was you you would have made them robots with no "free-will"? Every choice you make is on you - and you alone. Stop trying to make God a escape goat and blame man's acts on someone else. Take responsibility for your own actions. When you can raise the dead back to eternal life - then come talk to me about right or wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Probably because you've never really studied biology.

Apparently neither have you.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...s-especially-in-the-ot.7919979/#post-68913538

But then I need not ignore all observational evidence of how life propagates and variation occurs in the species for something never once observed anywhere - not even in the lab.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...cially-in-the-ot.7919979/page-2#post-68914849

Do you have any observational evidence that supports any of your claims? Any laboratory evidence that one thing evolves into something else? Of course you don't - that's why all your claims ignore it.