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

[RedPonyDriver]

The #1 problem with creationists and other fundamentalists is not understanding the literary genres in the bible.

 

[Butterfly99]

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with my post, but what I'm saying is, the most important thing that any of us will do in our lives is decide that Jesus is God and come to Him, or decide that He was just a lunatic, or worse yet, a "guru" or "spiritual guide or teacher". People all have different individual stumbling blocks keeping them from flying into the arms of Jesus Christ, and it is an act of will and faith that is different for all of us to get over whatever those stumbling blocks are, because if we don't, we're missing out on The Way, The Truth and The Life. For some, that stumbling block is a problem with the Old Testament of the Bible. If that is a person's stumbling block, as it was for me at first, I was recommending what worked for me, and that was to approach the Old Testament at first THROUGH Christ. (The New Testament, The living Word of God). Once I had gotten past the harder part of that, THEN I went into a more focused study, and leaned about modes of literature, types of books, the context of the times, hyperbole, typology, etc. etc. etc. But to this day, what is most important to me about the OT, is that Jesus inspired it through His Holy Spirit, and quoted it all during the incarnation. So if one can start with cross referencing His quotes from the Torah and Talmud, then that might be ONE method of beginning to approach some of the Old Testament books. Then once one is secure in the fact they all essentially point to Christ, and become more secure in their faith in Christ, and if one prays for increases in faith, hope and charity, then the stumbling blocks one might trip over in the OT will be removed, and we may better understand what the proper take away is from OT Scripture is in reference to the Word becoming flesh and living among us. Your mileage may vary. It was a helpful approach for me in my individual journey to Jesus.

Huh? Did you quote the wrong person by accident? Cause for real nothing that you wrote here matches up with my question about whether ppl really believe in giants.

 

[Butterfly99]

The #1 problem with creationists and other fundamentalists is not understanding the literary genres in the bible.

Yeah that's exactly what my mom said. She's a minister & does not believe in giants, a flat earth, dinosaurs & man coexisting, and all the rest of that stuff cause she understands the literary genres.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Yeah that's exactly what my mom said. She's a minister & does not believe in giants, a flat earth, dinosaurs & man coexisting, and all the rest of that stuff cause she understands the literary genres.

I have a BS in Biblical Studies...and the creation story is a myth...just like every other ancient culture has a creation myth. Essentially, the first few chapters of Genesis is a myth...no different from Beowulf. The history doesn't start until Abraham. There is some dispute regarding the authorship of Genesis...however, it is not meant to be taken literally...I'll get around to posting what the different genres are in each book of the bible...if I can find the paper. We're in the middle of moving...blech!

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

You can live in a unrealistic, egotistical world if you like to, but the facts still remain.

Maybe you should take it up with some of the Nobel Peace Prize winners

Charles H. Townes (1915-2015): In 1964 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1966 he wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion.[164][165]

And he was not a young earther. And, he was often wrong about physics, let alone biology.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Charles H. Townes (1915-2015): In 1964 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1966 he wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion.[164][165]

Did you ever actually read what he wrote?

 

[Hoghead1]

Can't say as as I agree with you, Stevenfrancis. Scripture itself never made any claim that Christ wrote the OT, to begin with. Furthermore, Christ does not cite everything in the OT. That should be obvious from even a quick glance at the Bible. Furthermore, more careful study shows the NT does in fact quote from the Apocrypha, which is left completely out of many Bibles. Hence, the problem I have with your theory is that it is not based on any solid biblical scholarship. As has been already pointed by others, many get confused about Scripture because they do not understand its genres and have spent no time learning what modern biblical studies has to say. You are operating on the basis of the inerrancy theory of Scripture. Note, I said "theory," because that is precisely what it is, a human-made collection of speculations about how God may be related to Scripture. Like any theory, it needs tested out. And I submit that is precisely what biblical studies has oden for over a hundred years and the result is this theory does not hold any water, period. For one thing, the Bible contains many contradictions. Take the Genesis account. It presents two highly contradictory chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together; In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. Furthermore, these two accounts are in two radically different literary styles from very different time periods, with Gen. having been much later than Gen. 2. Another case in point: Who really kill Goliath? David? Elhanan?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a BS in Biblical Studies...and the creation story is a myth...just like every other ancient culture has a creation myth. Essentially, the first few chapters of Genesis is a myth...no different from Beowulf. The history doesn't start until Abraham. There is some dispute regarding the authorship of Genesis...however, it is not meant to be taken literally...I'll get around to posting what the different genres are in each book of the bible...if I can find the paper. We're in the middle of moving...blech!

It is also worth mentioning that myth is not the same as lying. Myths were used in ancient cultures to communicate philosophical and theological truths. They still are. One example that people may be familiar with is George Orwell's book "Animal Farm". If you walk away from reading that book thinking that there really were talking animals on some farm somewhere, then you have missed the entire purpose of the book.

 

[mickiio]

Scientific theories where creationism is applied:

zero

Name a single scientist who has won a Nobel prize for showing how God changes the universe around us in any discernible fashion.

Did you ever actually read what he wrote?

Straw man much?

 

[Loudmouth]

Straw man much?

No strawman. You are trying to imply that creationism is used in science.

 

[mickiio]

No strawman. You are trying to imply that creationism is used in science.

As much as Darwinism is applied to science. Both are faith based systems.

 

[Loudmouth]

As much as Darwinism is applied to science. Both are faith based systems.

We have the evidence. No need for faith.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Also, are you saying that faith is bad? Are you trying to say that evolution is as bad as creationism because it uses faith too?

 

[bhsmte]

We have the evidence. No need for faith.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Also, are you saying that faith is bad? Are you trying to say that evolution is as bad as creationism because it uses faith too?

And she needs to deny this evidence, which requires a certain type of faith.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually, Loudmouth, all endeavors entail faith. If you just sit down in a chair, that is an act of faith, you going on your faith in the chair. Did you test it to see if it would hold you? No way. And don't give me the old argument that y don't have to test it, because you know for a fact (no faith involved here) it won't break. More than one of us has sat down in a chair presumed solid, only to have it collapse under us. All knowledge, and this most especially includes science, requires some degree of speculating beyond the facts, hence, a kind of leap of faith. Matter of fact, there is no way to scientifically verify the verification principle, which underlies modern science.

 

[justlookinla]

We have the evidence. No need for faith.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Also, are you saying that faith is bad? Are you trying to say that evolution is as bad as creationism because it uses faith too?

Nobody's ever shown one solitary single reference in the link concerning the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Not one.

Where's the evidence in the link?

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, Loudmouth, all endeavors entail faith. If you just sit down in a chair, that is an act of faith, you going on your faith in the chair. Did you test it to see if it would hold you? No way. And don't give me the old argument that y don't have to test it, because you know for a fact (no faith involved here) it won't break. More than one of us has sat down in a chair presumed solid, only to have it collapse under us. All knowledge, and this most especially includes science, requires some degree of speculating beyond the facts, hence, a kind of leap of faith. Matter of fact, there is no way to scientifically verify the verification principle, which underlies modern science.

I think you are confusing, trust, with faith.

If I go to sit down in a chair, that I have sat in many times, I have trust the chair will hold me. There is a slight chance it may not, but I have built trust on a track record, that it will.

Same thing when I flip the light switch. I trust the lights will go on, based on a track record that has built trust and reliability.

Do you rely on faith, the lights will go on when you flip the switch?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Nobody's ever shown one solitary single reference in the link concerning the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Not one.

Is the problem that you have a science nystagmus?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Do you rely on faith, the lights will go on when you flip the switch?

Better, do they pray, or flagellate when the light bulb burns out?

I get a new light bulb.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is true, Justalook, that many here fuss over the fact that Darwin did not specify the underlying mechanism, explain how the thing really works. However, that is largely a bogus criticism in terms of its scientific validity. Many things have a solid scientific validity even though their underlying mechanisms are not known. Gravity is certainly a solid scientific concept, yet Newton was never able to figure out the underlying mechanism and so said we should just forget about why it really works or what it really is and just focus on the math. Same with medical science. Many disease processes are well-documented, yet the underlying mechanism is unknown and so we have no cure.

 

[justlookinla]

Is the problem that you have a science nystagmus?

No, the problem is that nobody's ever shown one solitary single reference in the link concerning the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Not one.

Would you like to try?