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.
Who here has said that they want to delete the entire Bible before John 1? .
No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .
People spend a great deal of time debating the creation of the Earth and the creatures upon it. Some say the Genesis account is literal--God did it in six 24 hour days, Adam was the first man, Eve was the first woman. Others say that God used evolution to create man. ?
John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.Wonderful - so then John 1's reference to creation - is in fact a reference back to the Genesis 1-3 creation fact which also includes the fall man and explains the basis for the Gospel solution.
The point remains.
OK, you win. If you have to be a Christian to find specific reference to Complex Specified Information and Irreducible Complexity in Romans 1 then maybe I'm not one. But in the interest of evangelism, maybe you should explain it.c
Here again - a total lack of attention to detail in Romans 1 - has not helped your response to it.
So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. I doubt that many would agree with you on that. Obviously.That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.
As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.
obviously.
The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.
John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.
So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. .
intelligent design as in what we see in Romans 1.. you know... the obvious in this case... Paul says it is sooo incredibly obvious that even godless pagans with no Bible at all - can "clearly see it".
My question for you is - do you unwittingly take the atheist route on that while claiming to be Christian - to deny what even the godless pagans can clearly see?
Or do you hold to the Christian view of Romans 1??
The only "detail" in that post was you being snotty with your "do you still beat your wife?" style of questioning
But since there is nothing in Romans about irreducible complexity or specified complex information
I will have to assume that what you mean by intelligent design is the general notion that God designed the universe. As to what you mean by a "Christian" view of Romans, I have have no way of telling.
Your Bible doctrine is too strange to me. You might even be one of these "pre-trib Rapture" people and so hardly a Christian at all.
OK, you win. If you have to be a Christian to find specific reference to Complex Specified Information and Irreducible Complexity in Romans 1 then maybe I'm not one. But in the interest of evangelism, maybe you should explain it.
Quoting Professor Bart over and over really doesn't help your case. Guess that must be all you have.Atheists will say they prefer the religion of blind-faith-evolutionism to the Bible - I think we all would agree on that.
So what about the rest of us?
What does the "text" say??
hmm... let's see
is the text "so glaringly obvious" that even all the atheists and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities can "read it"??
I think so...
======================
==============================
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=======================
That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.
==================
T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)
Is anybody currently involved in this discussion arguing in favor of a "day-age" theory? For my part, it seems clear to me that the author(s) of Gen 1 were referring to regular 24 hour days.is the text "so glaringly obvious" that even all the atheists and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities can "read it"??
What wild speculation? I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.Sadly for you I am not the one posting wild speculation about John not being informed about the Genesis 1 fact that God created everything.
I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.
Indeed , it is clear that you have already assumed that, but are making no effort to evangelize.Are you claiming to be an atheist anglican or an atheist or an anglican in your own profile statement? Is it your argument that we should assume that anglicans are atheists and try to evangelize them??
How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed in that era? Can you really believe that a 1st century pagan ever looked at nature and said, "Aha! That's Irreducible Complexity!"Try taking your own argument seriously - if you really imagine that Romans 1 does not show non-Bible-aware pagans seeing the intelligent design attribute in nature so clearly as to see the attributes of God himself in the "THINGS that have been MADE" just when blind-faith-evolutionism would have it "things that have EVOLVED".
Is anybody currently involved in this discussion arguing in favor of a "day-age" theory? For my part, it seems clear to me that the author(s) of Gen 1 were referring to regular 24 hour days.
Why would they? No doubt they were all satisfied that it took seven days.Is it your argument that Genesis is an account of the 7 day creation - Moses gives this to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at Sinai - tells them the world was made in 7 day and they all say "ohhh... you really mean darwinian evolutionism"???
How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed
Is anybody currently involved in this discussion arguing in favor of a "day-age" theory? For my part, it seems clear to me that the author(s) of Gen 1 were referring to regular 24 hour days.
Why would they? No doubt they were all satisfied that it took seven days.
Oh, so now you've changed your tune. You are no longer claiming that the intelligent design you are talking about is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute but the proposition that nature reveals the work of an intelligent creator, a proposition I agreed to at the beginning of the discussion.how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.
one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.
Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.
LOL! Do you still beat your wife?So then - are you going for a "Bible is lying" solution in defense of blind-faith-evolutionism or just "Bible writers are clueless and the Bible should not be accepted as the Word of God"?? --
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?