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.
He didn't say "direction". Mallon said lightning itself is explained by Maxwell's equations.No. The direction of lightning does not necessaily require supernatural power. But the order that we find in the natural world does.
I am looking for a answer I can understand, so I need to make this pretty simple:
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25 NIV)
In versus 24-25 God tells us that he created land creatures according to their kinds (in my words that means different species).
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 NIV)
In versus 26-27 God tells us He created man in His image and they would rule over, basically, everything He had created on earth.
If those that support evolution are supporting that God morphed some of the creatures He created in versus 24-25 into man, I have a fundamental problem with that. As a Christian how do you reconcile macroevolution, for lack of a better word, with the Bible.
On the other hand if you are saying the man has evolved from versus 26-27 to modern man, we are in agreement.
Without going back and checking, I believe that it was shernren, actually.He didn't say "direction". Mallon said lightning itself is explained by Maxwell's equations.
No. But it means that we must read the creation stories in Genesis the way they were meant to be read: as theology and telling us the Who and why of creation, not the how. The creation stories tell us theological truths, not historical ones.So, are you saying in order for a Christian to accept macroevolution they must reject what the Bible says about creation?
But you think God is not with evolution. Do you see the contradiction?
Pretty much it does. It sets up the condition of ultimate truth: there is nothing but the material. Just like Christianity sets up the ultimate truth: God exists and created the material universe. Both of those provide the basis of their respective philosophies. You can have pursuit of intellectual truth under either of those philosophies. And do.
It makes all the difference in the world. "Don't know" is a very different view of nature than "only nature exists". The effect on explanations is also different.
Science doesn't try to get the ultimate truth because it can't know the ultimate truth. But if you say "only nature exists" then you have made a statement of ultimate truth.
It's not a "determination". It's a limitation.
It's something science cannot do. It cannot directly look for a supernatural component. Science would like to. I personally, wearing my scientist hat, would like to know whether the "natural" component is sufficient or whether we need a supernatural component. But I can't. All I can say is that what we have is sufficient as a material component.
God-of-the-gaps again. This is not reasonable by Christianity. Since God created a complete universe, there are not going to be any gaps.
He didn't say "direction". Mallon said lightning itself is explained by Maxwell's equations.
The order of a hexagonal shape we see in snowflakes is explained by the chemistry of water. Where do you think we should have the necessity of a supernatural power for that order?
The writer does not distinguish those views as his own.
I know what the pope's views on evolution theory are from his books "In the Beginning","Truth and Tolerance",and "Credo for Today",and from various quotes of his.
In the book "Creation and Evolution",he says that the theory of evolution is not a complete,scientifically proven theory
,and that because of the immense time span it covers,it cannot be verified in a controlled environment.
He doubts macro-evolution,so he must also doubt that all organsisms have a common ancestor.
The theory of evolution is itself atheistic and materialistic in character,because it proceeds from MN and so it explains the history of organisms as if they came to exist only because of natural processes.
When the pope talks about evolution,he does not usually distinguish between the scientific theory and the mere concept,which can mean any kind of development,or between macro-evolution and micro-evolution,which is really just speciation. So if he supports theistic evolution,it is not an uncritical belief in all the particular claims of evolution theory,as it is with most theistic evolutionists.
No. But it means that we must read the creation stories in Genesis the way they were meant to be read: as theology and telling us the Who and why of creation, not the how. The creation stories tell us theological truths, not historical ones.
What Mallon is saying is that Christianity has a long history of allowing extrabiblical evidence to tell us how we should interpret scripture. The classic example is Luke 2:1. Our extrabiblical knowledge tells us that only Romans were enrolled in the census. That has become so entrenched that the NIV has a false translation to say just that. The Greek really says "whole world" as in the entire world, not just the Roman world.
The Bible teaches flat earth. But when extrabiblical evidence showed that the earth was round, we reinterpreted those verses. Same with the verses that says the earth is immovable. I see you trying to reinterpret Psalm 19:6 to mean movement thru the galaxy. David could not possibly have meant that. But you use extrabiblical evidence about the galaxy and the sun's movement in it to reinterpret the verse. Wrongly.
Mallon, Papias, Gluadys, I and the vast majority of Christians simply do the same thing with Genesis 1-3.
Is it also possible that God inspired Moses to write about something he didn't fully understand.I know this may seem like a leap of faith and perhaps it is, but I believe that it is certainly possible that God inspired David to write about something he didn't fully understand.
When the pope talks about evolution,he does not usually distinguish between the scientific theory and the mere concept,which can mean any kind of development,or between macro-evolution and micro-evolution,which is really just speciation. So if he supports theistic evolution,it is not an uncritical belief in all the particular claims of evolution theory,as it is with most theistic evolutionists.
Is it also possible that God inspired Moses to write about something he didn't fully understand.
First we realize that this is a theological document. This is easier to understand if you put yourself in the position of the people of Israel at the time it was written. The major religious competition is the Babylonian religion. The Babylonian creation story is the Enuma Elish. You can find it online. Everyone then would have been familiar with the Enuma Elish. Genesis 1 is meant to destroy the Babylonian religion by destroying the Babylonian gods in the order in which they appear in the Enuma Elish. The first gods are Apsu and Tiamet, the gods of freshwater and saltwater. Their son is earth. Well, Yahweh separates water to form saltwater and freshwater and then creates earth. That destroys the Babylonian gods because they can't be gods if the physical object of which they are gods is created by Yahweh.
The Babylonians believed that animals had spirits that were semi-godlike. By being creations of Yahweh, this is refuted.
Second, "in his image" doesn't refer to what humans look like. It refers to their power. In the Enuma Elish, humans are created as the servants and playthings of the gods; they have no power of their own. In Genesis 1 humans are created for their own sakes. "in his image" was a phrase used at the time for an ambassador who had the power to make binding treaties without referring to the king (remember how slow communication was then). So Genesis 1:26 is saying the same thing 2 different ways: humans have the power of God in regard to what they do to the earth. What they do is as tho God did it.
Finally, God's Creation tells us humans are the latest species in a long series of species. Yes, we did evolve from species that were non-human. Get used to it.
What you want is for us to be special because God created us specially. Sorry, but that is your ego speaking. We are special only because God chooses to regard us as special. We are totally dependent on God.
Oh, I see. You're still trying to argue for scientific concordism. That's still wrong. We know from the other verses I provided that Psalm 19:6 doesn't refer to the sun's movement through the galaxy because the other verses describle the sun as moving along the firmament, which wasn't out in space.Sure it is. But because they didn't fully understand it doesn't mean that it was wrong, it just means they didn't understand it. Remember the writers of the bible were inspired by God. It is not like you or me, well at least me.
Oh, I see. You're still trying to argue for scientific concordism. That's still wrong. We know from the other verses I provided that Psalm 19:6 doesn't refer to the sun's movement through the galaxy because the other verses describle the sun as moving along the firmament, which wasn't out in space.
You've ignored the other verses I provided, though. Not only is the sun said to move along the firmament, but the earth is also said to be immovable. So presuming you accept heliocentrism -- since that's what it sounds like -- why do you reject what the Bible says about cosmology?I am not the one trying to use this scripture to support a scientific argument. My comment was simply the converse to someone's comment that this verse promotes geocentricity, and that one could argue if they choose that it does in fact show motion between to two spheres, without fully understanding why. In most if not all scripture that talks about the sun's movement, it is simply a observation. When we talk about the sun's movement, in everyday language, we see the sun's movement not the earths rotation.
You didn't answer my question.On one hand we have (i) concordism (is that a word) seeking to equate the interpretation of Biblical passages with scientific observations; on the other hand we have (ii) the integration of science and faith seeking to understand the meaning and purpose of nature and science through the eyes of faith on the basis of the revelation of our incarnate, crucified, resurrected Savior. Perhaps everyone is best served with the latter.
You also gave up on the fact that the scientific evidence in Daniel contradicted the fire.Doveman doesn't appear to grasp was constitutes scientific evidence, which is why I gave up the discussion.But they are not contradicted by scientific evidence.
This is because the names "Adam" and "Eve" have both singular and plural usage. This is no different form the name Jacob having both singular and plural usage. Jacob (singular) was Abraham’s grandson, and his many descendants, the nation of Israel, were also referred to as Jacob (plural).I was referring to the "male and female He created them". And that, in Hebrew, is "men" and "women". Not Adam and Eve.
You are making it obvious you don’t understand what Paul is saying.And why don't you read all of Paul instead of a bit out of context. For instance, you should have looked at the OT to realize that Paul is saying something forbidden in scripture, that the sons can be punished for the sins of the fathers:
There is the fallen sin-nature we inherited from fallen Adam and there are the sins we commit as a result of having that fallen sin-nature. The verses you quoted above are describing the sins we commit and not the sin-nature we inherited. Our children are not punished for the sins we commit. However, Paul in Romans 5 is describing the sin-nature we inherited from fallen Adam.Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the
children be put to death for the fathers
2Chron.25:4 "But he slew not their children, but [did] as [it is] written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin."
I am often told by your fellow internet scientists that a scientific theory is so well evidenced that it is considered a fact. So don’t blame me for this confusion. Blame your fellow internet scientists.You are confusing fact and theory. I know I've done this for you at least once, Doveaman, but let me do it again.
Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed. The *theory* states that a person dead will not come back to life.
That’s great! I believe this too.However, the story is not talking about an ordinary donkey; it is talking about a miracle. God intervenes so that Balaam's mule (not donkey, BTW) can talk. So, I believe a mule with the intervention of God is capable of talking.
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?